However this episode also has one really fantastic hint to make up for that. (Umineko Spoilers) Erika asks for the door to be closed, indicating to the servants in general. Then both Shannon and Kanon respond with a simultaneous yes, and both go together to close the door. Combine this with the latter parts of the episode hammering in that Erika is the detective and thus Battler’s viewpoint is no longer reliable and you can figure out what was going on in this episode. I think this particular detail was a really fantastic hint that Ryukishi put in.
3 Likes
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this but I consider myself a pretty recent fan of Umineko and Ryukishi07. I just finished Episode 5, and from what people are saying if you think a bit about the earlier episodes, you can solve the mystery right away. My question is: Is there a moment in the novel where the mystery becomes obvious and the characters actually talk about it and explain it or does it actually require some thinking because I usually try not to think too hard while reading a VN just so that I don’t ruin the surprise but since this is the first time I’m playing WTC (aside from the fighting game), I don’t really know the structure of the story. Thanks in advance.
If you’re asking whether or not a complete answer is revealed later on… yes and no, I’d say. It does eventually explain everything in detail, but some fans find the explanation in the novel a bit vague and hard to follow unless you’ve already been thinking about it a lot or you go back and reread episodes. I don’t want to encourage you to stop thinking, but if you read all of the VN and still don’t get it then there are a few chapters in the manga that explain in a bit more of a concrete way. You might understand the novel’s answer though. Reactions are mixed.
If you’re asking whether or not the answer has already been discussed between the characters in EP 1-5, there have been many conversations that border on it and hint at it throughout it all, and I think some of the scenes in EP 5 are particularly close.
1 Like
I see, thanks a lot. I’ve been trying to pay attention to the details since I heard the mystery was quite hard if you don’t but again as I stated earlier I didn’t want to ruin the surprise if it was revealed. From what I can tell by your explanation, it really depends on how much attention to detail a person has , so I’ll just keep reading and try to puzzle things as I go.
No problem. I wish you the best of luck! 
1 Like
Hi @Butcher! I don’t think I’ve seen you around the forum before! Are you new? If you are, why don’t you head over and introduce yourself to the rest of the forum! We’re friendly, I promise! 
And to answer your question, yes! But like @AMF said, the mystery can quite complicated, so just keep reading and thinking! If you check out our other Umineko spoiler free topics you can see all of our theories, as well as telling us your own! Solving Umineko’s mysteries are a lot easier when you have others to help talk and theorize with!
Best of luck solving the mystery!
2 Likes
Here’s a fun question for newcomers:
That knock and letter riddle. How was it done?
(If you think you know the answer, post it in a spoiler tag with given context =P)
Though more generally, I’d like to hear you guys’ thoughts on some of the following:
- Was this anything like you expected Episode 5 to be?
- Has this episode changed your perception of Beato? If so, how?
- Do you enjoy Erika as a character? What do you think of her approach to the mystery?
- What do you think of Knox’s decalogue? Do you share Battler and Dlanor’s thoughts on it?
- Do you think Dlanor and Virgilia’s metaphors for the relationship between the writer and reader of a tale are accurate? And does it affect how you see Umineko or the metaworld plot as a whole?
- Why do you think Lambda and Bern are doing what they’re doing in this episode?
- Do you feel sympathetic towards Natsuhi? And if so, why, despite all she did?
- How’d you like the new soundtracks?
- Seriously, how amazing was that comeback!?
3 Likes
Riddle: I don’t know, I really don’t. I’d have to go over the reds again, but that seems really airtight.
Was this anything like you expected Episode 5 to be?
No.
Has this episode changed your perception of Beato? If so, how?
Not really. We establish her reasons for her actions were not as rotten as what we may have thought, but I kind of expected this. Episode 4 hinted at it a bit.
Do you enjoy Erika as a character? What do you think of her approach to the mystery?
I don’t hate her, but she largely hasn’t landed with me yet. I don’t feel like I can answer the latter.
What do you think of Knox’s decalogue? Do you share Battler and Dlanor’s thoughts on it?
I’m not sure I 100% know where they stand. Was it that it often is best, but not always? I guess I would agree.
I feel opposed to it conceptually but generally not as much in execution. In general, abiding would be beneficial to the audience, I think, but perhaps not always.
Do you think Dlanor and Virgilia’s metaphors for the relationship between the writer and reader of a tale are accurate?
Perhaps.
And does it affect how you see Umineko or the metaworld plot as a whole?
Not as of yet.
Why do you think Lambda and Bern are doing what they’re doing in this episode?
I don’t know. I didn’t really like them in this episode. They just seemed to act nasty the whole time.
Do you feel sympathetic towards Natsuhi? And if so, why, despite all she did?
I really hope that nobody here would be unreasonable enough to be sympathetic to Shion but not to Natsuhi, just let me get that out there.
This is tough. There is no mental gymnastics in the world that can justify what she did 19 years ago, but I can’t bring myself to hate her. It’s one of those things that would be easier to not have to think on.
How’d you like the new soundtracks?
Uhhhh it’s generally not the thing I notice most but I do recall there being a couple of good ones.
Seriously, how amazing was that comeback!?
…I don’t really understand the golden truth yet, so I think that may have hurt it a bit.
EDIT: That being said, I think the latter tea party, as well as the early parts of the episode, where the high points.
5 Likes
I’ll start with some first impressions and what I can immediately think of. There are a lot of things I wanna revisit and that needs time, so there will be at least one more post. I’ll announce at the end of this one what those things will be. Also, I think I’ll use Kari’s bulletin points as a guideline for first impressions.
But first, please a moment of silence for the Kanon=Shannon theory:
Let’s see, what were my expectations again?
My Ep 4 theory. Might be wrong, there are more hints that it actually is Shannon behind everything, not Kanon. More to that at the end (well, kinda). Battler realizing his sin, forgiving Beatrice. Well, he realized the goddamn truth, so that’s implied. And me disliking Erika. Well, more to that later.
Apart from perhaps being wrong on the identity of Beato, not really.
What does “enjoy as character” even mean? I appreciate the concept (in a talk with a forgetful friend of mine, we both called her an intentional self-insert Mary Sue, not made by Ryukishi mind you, but by Bernkastel), so I guess there’s some enjoyment? I thoroughly despise her though, so I guess you could call it “love to hate”?
Regarding her approach to mystery, I once had that inner thought if Bern perhaps is some kind of reader avatar in a sense, since her motivation throughout the question arcs seem to align with that of a reader, and through her double, Erika, this is further cemented, though the scope is lessened to the type of reader that only cares about the who dunnit and the how dunnit. And while I myself planned to start my theoryfinding on the who dunnit, I still tried to keep the how dunnit AND the why dunnit in the back of my mind. Erika herself even said again that she only trusts the red and her own perspective and ignored everything else. But if you do that, it is so much less likely to find the truth.
There’s also something I wanna point out about her portrait. I think it perfectly describes her shortcomings. She sits in an armchair, signifying her standing as detective, but the chair itself is filthy and broken, and the background shows dead vegetation, signifying her utter lack of compassion.
I think I do share their views. The important thing to take home there is that it’s a tool, not some big holy thing you have to adhere to. Kinda reminded me how the view on the Prime Directive in Star Trek changed over the different series. I definitely used one of those rules when composing my theory for Umi. Was basically asking myself “Is there ample foreshadowing in ep 1 for this character to commit the crime?” (I think I used Knox’ 8th?)
It depends from tale to tale. There are tales (viewed in the broadest sense, so meaning any kind of medium) that are written “without love”, with the sole intent to make money, but for those that are written “with love”, I think that metaphor holds true. Usually an artist wants to express something with their art, and that’s basically what that metaphor talks about. I already asked myself “what does Beato want to tell with this scene?” on multiple occasions, so probably not.
It’s definitely interesting. I remember Zosonte saying recently that he expects them to be outerscope villains that stay that way and won’t interfere more directly, but that Ryukishi wants to make him fear that they might at some point. Well, he’ll have a field day soon. Anyway, their motives. I think they really do want to relieve their boredom, I don’t get the feeling they actually have much compassion for Beato or Battler. However, I think Virgilia is right in assuming that Beato saw this coming and thus invited them to give Battler that final nudge to solve the mystery. I think in a similar way she subconciously allowed Ange to enter her golden land. Either that, or Ange was permitted entry from Maria in ep 4, since at that point they seemed to be on an equal level.
What she did is straight up murder, no way around it. Sure, I understand her motive (and apparently that is called sympathy, these terms are confusing as heck), but I still contempt her for those actions. Well, rather, I generally dislike the idea of shaming/hating someone for whatever crime for all eternity, but I do want to see the culprit repent for their actions, something Natsuhi is shown doing.
See above.
Now, for my next post, or what will happen in my next post, I will see if I can construct a Kanon culprit theory for the fifth game (both the Natsuhi culprit theory and the Battler culprit theory are not true after all), and look at all the games if I can construct a Shannon culprit theory. For Shannon on her own I’ll have to look at the how dunnit as well, as I don’t think that was discussed as detailed in the ep 4 topic. I’ll also look in detail at that letter puzzle.
Finally I wanna throw a question to all you fellow detectives: Natsuhi killing that one servant and most likely that baby and Rosa meeting Beatrice both happen in 1967 (the latter presumably). Coincidence?
5 Likes
Was it ever stated that Rosa meeting Beatrice happened in 1967? I don’t recall.
If I recall correctly all that was said in EP 3 was that there was a person called Beatrice living in Kuwadorian in 1967. If that was the year Rosa met her or not is debatable, specially since we don’t know Rosa’s age.
@VyseGolbez I thought I would like Erika a lot more than I currently do, personally. I don’t have any reason for that other than instinct, which almost always succeeds for me.
I think I agree with a lot of what you said.
I finished the episode! That was marvelous. I confess I found myself enjoying the episode as a story more than a mystery, suspending my disbelief in places and not worrying so much about the details. I had conflicted feelings – I wanted to cheer on Battler for preserving the illusion of Kinzo, even though I knew it was a lie and couldn’t be defended forever. Whose side am I supposed to be on? It’s like Beatrice said – we’re fighting on a battle on three fronts, which means you may temporarily ally with your enemies.
But I think everything comes back to ‘without love, it can’t be seen.’ We’re supposed to find Erika, ‘the intellectual rapist,’ distasteful even as she fights the illusion of the witch, because she does it without love or understanding. Even when Battler was incompetent, overemotional, and folded too easily, he did everything with love. He didn’t want to suspect his relatives or the servants because he looked at them with love, and the more he watched these people die around him, the more he loved them and mourned them.
So I wonder if that’s what Beatrice wanted to ‘show’ him, according to the reasoning that he survives the longest in all of the plotline murders. He still loves his family, despite all their flaws, despite his youthful desire to leave them all behind.
Beatrice also calls him a liar that doesn’t keep his promises, which lends some weight to the theory that Battler made some promise six years ago and couldn’t keep it because he left the family register. It could be the promise he made to Shannon to be her ‘knight,’ since the knight image comes up a few times this episode. Shannon is also made suspicious because she’s the only one who knows Natushi’s favorite season, but honestly, I’m not sure how damning that is. After all, the card was only revealed when Natsuhi lifted the clock, and we only saw it from Natushi’s perspective.
I couldn’t sustain the Kanon=Shannon theory this episode, alas. But I think my ‘Battler is Beato’s son’ theory is still strong, and has new support. The original Beatrice, the one Kinzo loved, died. Kinzo found a girl he believed to be her reincarnation – we’ll call her Beato – and he had Beato raised in the hidden mansion. Beato is the woman Rosa met, and who died by falling off the cliff. But before she died, she had a child. Kinzo hoped this child would be the next reincarnation of Beatrice, and gave it to Natsuhi. When the child ‘died’ by falling over the same cliff, he could only laugh, assuming it was Beatrice was trying to escape him again. But the child didn’t die. The child survived to be raised by Rudolf, and became Battler. And ultimately, in the Meta World, Battler does become the Golden Witch and Endless Sorcerer, so maybe he does have something of Beatrice’s spirit in him, after all.
Another thing that interested me this episode – Beatrice took responsibility for Natsuhi’s sin in ‘murdering’ the child, almost as a service for her new master. She didn’t become the proud, cackling Beatrice until it was clear Natsuhi was struggling to face what she’d done. I think this is a hint to Beatrice’s true nature. She takes responsibility for the sins people don’t want to admit, but she hasn’t sinned herself. She’s trying to get Battler to see that, and has given him plenty of room and hints to establish that she isn’t the true culprit.
EDIT: One more thing! Does anyone think they’ve solved the epitaph riddle yet? I think I got closer, with the hint that the keyword might be in English … and I think I know where the ‘door’ to the Golden Land is, based on a clue from the fourth episode. But I’m still not sure how to use the atlas.
6 Likes
Some nice contributions there, mimsy. However, I must press you on the “Battler is the baby that Natsuhi is pushed” theory.
In an earlier episode, IIRC, Kyrie mentions that both she and Asumu got pregnant at around the same time, which wouldn’t have been too long after this event. Now, if this aforementioned baby is Battler:
-
Somehow, a bizarre series of events lead this baby into Rudolf’s household somehow.
-
Asumu and Kyrie both lost their respective children. They are never mentioned, so they would almost certainly have died very early in life.
Now, you can easily blue me here: I can’t prove that 1 didn’t happen obviously, and you could say that Kyrie constructed a lie. But as much as I can’t credibly argue this, it seems implausible.
3 Likes
A worthy counter, @Exalt! If it’s all right, I’d like to use Knox’s decalogue as a crutch for my thinking. Knox’s 8th: It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented. Put another way: While it’s possible that a bizarre series of events led the baby of 19 years ago to Rudolf, and while it’s possible that Asumu and Kyrie both lost their children, the clues for it must be presented or it violates the spirit of fair play. So if I’m going to make a claim like 'Battler is Beato’s son and the baby from 19 years ago, ’ I need to produce support for those two points from the clues already presented to us.
Got it. I’ll start with the second point.
- Asumu and Kyrie both lost their respective children. They are never mentioned, so they would almost certainly have died very early in life.
Where are the clues for this? Let me present the red truth from Episode 4.
Ushiromiya Battler is not Ushiromiya Asumu’s son. He was unable to say he was born of Asumu in red, though he was able to say he was a Ushiromiya. If there is a child born of Asumu, it isn’t strange at all to think something happened to the child. And it must have happened very early in life, or else Battler would remember. If Battler did remember another child growing up, that would be a vital clue not presented to us, and a violation of Knox’s laws.
So do I think Asumu’s child died? Not necessarily. I think Asumu’s child never existed in the first place. Kyrie’s pregnancy would have created inheritance issues, and Rudolf was pressured to marry Asumu over Kyrie. But if Rudolf and Asumu adopted the baby from 19 years ago, they couldn’t do it right away. Asumu would have to create the illusion that the child really was hers, and wait nine months, pretending pregnancy. That also explains why Battler’s official birthdate is 18 years ago, the same year Kyrie’s child would have been born.
Now to the first point.
- Somehow, a bizarre series of events lead this baby into Rudolf’s household somehow.
Where are the clues for this? Battler brings them up himself this episode. Rudolf always acts strangely before the first murders, and hints that he has something to tell Battler. In this episode, he even goes far as to say it involves Battler’s birth. He is aso deeply amused at the letter from Beatrice naming Battler as Kinzo’s successor — he may know more about Beatrice than he’s letting on. In a previous episode, he even predicted his own death,with almost supernatural intuition. But it needn’t be supernatural if he has some insight into Rokkenjima’s mysteries, and the letter from Beatrice was enough to remind him.
Are there other explanations? Absolutely! I think you’re hinting at one yourself. Battler might be Kyrie’s child, switched in the hospital after Asumu’s died. I suspect Battler’s birth is connected to Beatrice and the mysteries of Rokkenjima, but it’s only a hunch. Until I absolutely confirm it, both truths can co-exist in the cat-box.
2 Likes
Just a minor nitpick without getting myself dragged into the discussion: I am fairly certain Battler was able to say in red that Asumu is his mother, he only choked up when he tried to say that he was born by her. Semantics matter and I always thought it a pretty strong statement that her being his mother was still accepted by the red. Just keep that in mind when you go on reading, the red truth apparently has a certain bias when it comes to how people understand the meaning of words.
2 Likes
Semantics matter, you’re right! I’m not disputing that Battler’s mother is Asumu, just as Ange is his little sister. But Battler isn’t Asumu’s son, in the sense that he isn’t the child born from her. The red truths seem to go with that reading. Here are all the red truths I have from that conversation:
“My name is Ushiromiya Battler”
“I am the Golden Witch, Beatrice. And I opened this game in order to fight Ushiromiya Kinzo’s grandchild Ushiromiya Battler."
“Ushiromiya Battler’s mother is Ushiromiya Asumu.”
“My name is Ushiromiya Battler"
“It was from Ushiromiya —“ [cut off statement: “It was from Ushiromiya Asumu I was born.”)
“I am Ushiromiya Battler”
“You are not Ushiromiya Asumu’s son.”
“Ushiromiya Battler is not Ushiromiya Asumu’s son.”
“Battler is not Asumu’s son”
“No one except Kinzo’s grandchild Battler is qualified to be an opponent.”
“Ange is … my little sister.”
I will offer this concession: his ability to say Ange is his little sister can work as the proof that he can say Asumu is his mother even though they’re not related by blood. However, it’s possible that Ange is related to Battler by blood because Battler is Kyrie’s son, and that’s the reason he was able to say Ange is his little sister. Then we have to revisit the question of why he was able to say Asumu was his mother, he wasn’t able to say that he was her son. The red truths do make that clear — it’s not just that he can’t say he wasn’t born from Asumu in red, Beatrice can definitively say he wasn’t Asumu’s son in red. Why would that be?
2 Likes
Mmh… I’m guessing here myself, but I’d say semantics and perspective. Just allow me to add the people who spoke your red truths:
Battler: “My name is Ushiromiya Battler”
Beatrice: “I am the Golden Witch, Beatrice. And I opened this game in order to fight Ushiromiya Kinzo’s grandchild Ushiromiya Battler."
Battler: “Ushiromiya Battler’s mother is Ushiromiya Asumu.”
Battler: “My name is Ushiromiya Battler"
Battler “It was from Ushiromiya —“ [cut off statement: “It was from Ushiromiya Asumu I was born.”)
Battler: “I am Ushiromiya Battler”
Beatrice: “You are not Ushiromiya Asumu’s son.”
Beatrice: “Ushiromiya Battler is not Ushiromiya Asumu’s son.”
(Beatrice?, can’t remember this one): “Battler is not Asumu’s son”
Beatrice: “No one except Kinzo’s grandchild Battler is qualified to be an opponent.”
Battler: “Ange is … my little sister.”
Seeing it like this makes it obvious that it is Battler who makes the Red declaring Asumu being his mother because he truly regards her as his mother and for all intends and purposes she is. To him.
Beatrice however uses mother in the biological sense, that’s why she had to urge Battler to say ‘born from’, because otherwise his Red would have still been valid regardless. Only when he started to talk about biological motherhood, he started to choke.
Otherwise we clearly would have two conflicting Reds, because without adding the people speaking the reds, Asumu would be both declared to be Battler’s mother and declared not to be his mother. That’d be a pretty glaring logic error if there would be just one ultimate red truth, wouldn’t it? Instead it seems like the Red is far more flexible, adjusting to the meaning its user connects with the words. The only other possible explanation would be, if Battler’s first red truth about Asumu being his mother was suddenly about Asumu’s supposedly dead child, but that would be a ludicrous thing given that he doesn’t know about it. Wouldn’t it even violate Knox #6?
Anyway, all I am saying is that it is far more likely that the Red simply uses the meaning its user is intending. Nothing more, nothing less.
2 Likes
Ah! I think we’re in agreement, then! Part of what’s going on is semantic: the conflicting statements aren’t ‘Battler’s mother is Asumu’ and 'Battler’s mother isn’t Asumu ’ but ‘Battler’s mother is Asumu’ and ‘Battler isn’t Asumu’s son.’ Normally it’s logical to equate those statements, but Battler and Beatrice are using those terms in a way that doesn’t require it. And, just as you say, part of what’s going on is the perspective. Battler knows what he means when he says ‘mother,’ and Beatrice knows what she means when she says ‘son.’ If Asumu were part of that conversation, she might have her own meaning, and she might even be able to say ‘Battler is my son.’ It seems like it’s not possible to say something demonstrably false in the red truth – Battler couldn’t say he was born from Asumu, not even if he personally and deeply believed it – but you can state your own feelings and follow your own interpretations. And if it’s something like love of a mother, something that can’t be seen, the person experiencing the emotion is always the final authority.
EDIT: BTW the last ‘Battler is not Asumu’s son’ is spoken by Ange, who mediates between perspectives.
4 Likes