eeeumineko
[spoiler]Beato hasn't called GAME because she cannot. Do not believe what she says about "This is a game between us and saying I did it in Red takes the fun out of it." Think of it logically as a detective; she cannot claim X therefore she states that she does not do so to preserve Y. She pulls this twice in the game, actually, with the bigger one being the existence of Suit Beato (that is, the one in the mini-skirt IS NOT BEATRICE).
And, no, Kinzo is dead before the games start. Good job falling for it (as most people should). It'll be more apparent with another game where he "dies" through being burned; this game is an anomaly what with him "surviving" and all until T10.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I guessed Kinzo has been dead for awhile and I have my confirmation finally: Game 4 has Red Text stating that Kinzo has been dead long before ANY of the Games began. To be honest, you can come to this conclusion fairly easily given some level of thought but still, yay for me picking this one up.
There are NOT 18 people on the island--merely 17 are there.[/spoiler]
What anime are you currently watching?
Moderator: ItL Moderators
-
Maxine MagicFox
- ItL Webmaster
- Posts: 13474
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
Maxine MagicFox
- ItL Webmaster
- Posts: 13474
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
Maxine MagicFox
- ItL Webmaster
- Posts: 13474
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
Maxine MagicFox
- ItL Webmaster
- Posts: 13474
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
I don't look ahead on purpose; I read a topic that lists the Red Truths (as they occur) and I have the TIPS form the Game and I've only had a few minor things spoiled. The Game 4 one was a pretty big one, though it really made me happy to finally have in-game proof as opposed to logical conjecture.
[spoiler]That and Game 5 END T.T FUCK YOU GUY etc.[/spoiler]
I'm watching the show with a few friends as it airs and we're discussing it fairly extensively and I even have notes for alibis, Magic Scenes (any scene with a butterfly), and so-on. Hell, we reached the Kinzo Conclusion after Game 1 since it's pretty "IN YOUR FACE" about it, although I used the start of EP1 in my proof but that was all of a 3 minute scene that I had to share to get us on level ground.
So ... no, I'm not looking ahead. I don't know more than you outside of some small details (plus that Kinzo confirmation) that I've already posted here and most these details are things missing from the Anime (i.e., looking back, not ahead).
[spoiler]And I guess if you want, the Red Truths extension is possibly a spoiler I guess? There are global Red Truths, like Kinzo's status, and a few that are Game-specific I believe. I'm not 100% sure but I will say that the Red Truths will shed light on every game in order for there to be an Anti-Fantasy resolution thanks to Devil's Proof.
The Red Truths are our means of obtaining Devil's Proof, which makes it ironic that Beato is giving them to us but whatever (yeah, think about that for a moment). I'm adamantly anti-fantasy in the sense of the murders mostly because it is more entertaining that way; a mystery is more fun to solve than fantasy. However, the foundation of anti-fantasy is the assumption: This can be solved. Everything done to find a killer comes back to that assumption. Devil's Proof is the crux of the argument here. Until every scene can be proven and then proven to have no unfound evidence to disprove it, we're not done; my assumption needs to be proven otherwise the whole thing topples over. What a pain.[/spoiler]
By the way, Game 1-3's taglines:
EP1: The difficulty is standard. Shall we first take the easy road?
EP2: The difficulty is first-rate. The Witch intends to make you surrender with no warning
EP3: The difficulty is equal. Equal for both you and the Witch
Difficulty here referring to "The difficulty in disproving the Witch."
[spoiler]EP 4 is "You're boned."
...
EP4: The difficulty depends on you. Your style of fighting up until now will influence the difficulty[/spoiler]
And if you haven't read it yet, Ryukishi's definition on Anti-fantasy and Anti-mystery (LONG):
[spoiler]This time around, the tagline for EP3 has changed from "Deducible? Not deducible?" to "Anti-Fantasy vs. Anti-Mystery". Those who have finished reading EP3 might already understand that the world of "Umineko" is precisely as the tagline says. Although everyone has heard of "mystery" and "fantasy", you might not have heard of "anti-mystery" or "anti-fantasy". What does it mean by "anti"? Please allow me to explain.
The meaning of "Anti-Fantasy" is as the words say. "Fantastic" phenomenon cannot exist in the world we live in. Those dream-like fairy-tales are nothing more than fiction. Even if someone believes in their existence, it's really nothing more than an exaggerating, politically-inclined delusion.
Do you truly believe that Earth was created by the Creator in seven days? Do you believe that Izanagi used a spear to "dig" up the first island of Japanese archipelago? [1] Impossible. The Big Bang, collusion between asteroids, movement of land mass -- using these theories to explain how lands are formed is the plausible way to go.
To those people who love to talk about scientific theories in Japanese History or World History classes, I would like to welcome you to the world of "Anti-Fantasy". To those people who do not believe in "fantasy" at heart but who are good at conforming, I would also like to welcome you to the world of "Anti-Fantasy".
Witches and magic cannot possibly exist. Everything can only be revealed through the method of deduction. There must be a lot of people out there who believe earnestly in such view point. This thing that I call "Anti-Fantasy" is really our basic thought process, our common sense. As long as you adopt this way of thinking, there is no way you will surrender to "Umineko". Because witches and magic do not exist.
Now then, the direct explanation of "Anti-Fantasy" is complete. And now we will move on to the topic of "Anti-Mystery".
First off, before we talk about "Anti-Mystery", we need to first dive into the topic of "mystery novels". To fully explain what is a "mystery novel", this little booklet is not enough. Therefore, we shall only dabble in it briefly.
When one talks about "mystery novels", one usually means "traditional mystery novels".[2] To put in simply, traditional mystery novel is a mystery novel where the reader is able to use the information given in the story to solve the case before the solution is given out.
This is the main trend in mystery story; it's perhaps appropriate to grant it the title "traditional". Traditional mystery is a battle of wit between the author and the reader during the reading process. From this perspective, traditional mystery novels are the most entertaining one amongst genre fictions. That means high quality traditional mysteries are exactly like precise riddle games such as mathematical problems; they are the purified, enlightened condensation of many great works by famous mystery authors.
Nonetheless, purified traditional mystery will eventually run into certain obstacles, namely, a famous problem called "later Queen problem".[3] To put it simply, the "later Queen problem" concerns with the inability to determine whether the information the detective (the reader) can obtain in the story is complete or not. Good detectives normally use evidence and clues they've found to come up with a good deduction and a plausible conclusion. But an important criteria must be satisfied before the solution can be regarded as completely accurate.
That is, the evidence and clues that the detective are processing must be "complete". In most cases, the detective will thoroughly search the crime scene, and list the evidence and clues he or she has discovered. However, the possibility that "there exists a decisive evidence X which the detective is unable to unearth" cannot be denied. It means that, no matter how much the famous detective shows off his great detection skill, the solution is only "constructed together from the clues and evidence that was present at the time". To put it another way, if the "undiscovered decisive evidence X" is later added into the story, the solution the detective came up with might be struck down entirely.
Therefore, a detective not only has to come up with a solution according to the evidence, but he also has to prove that "there does not exist any undiscovered evidence". There is no further need to explain this, for this is the true "Devil's Proof". It's impossible to prove the accuracy of the solution that the detective must have come up with in the end. Even though traditional mystery ought to play out as a completely plausible puzzle game, at this point they are trapped by the fact that they cannot plausibly reveal the truth.
In "Umineko no Naku Koro ni", it was repeatedly stated that there are "only one master key", but one cannot deny the possibility that the master key has been duplicated. Even if a character were to claim it is impossible to make a duplicate, one cannot disprove the possibility that "the key has been duplicated without the speaker's knowledge." Even if the key is molded into a shape that makes it impossible to duplicate, one cannot disprove the possibility that "there are unknown technology out there that makes duplicating the key possible".
The witness might have been lying; the police might have made some blunder during the processing stage. Or a key character is bribed by the culprit, or the culprit has placed certain evidence that would lead the detective to the wrong direction (i.e. red herring). If we cannot completely exclude these "unexpected possibility", we might not even be able to discover the hints. Regrettably, these "disproving" cannot be accomplished.
Stepping back, assume that the detective (the reader) has come up with a very plausible solution, and the murderer has confessed to the crime. As long as the undiscovered evidence X still exists, one cannot disprove the possibility that "the accomplice admits to the crime in order to protect the true murderer".
In fact, a similar situation as described above has appeared in Watanagashi-hen of "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni". Before Meakashi-hen was released, almost all the readers had come up with the wrong culprit for the events that had occurred in Watanagashi-hen.
Examining Watanagashi-hen alone, when the culprit admits to the conclusion Rena comes up with in her deduction, that particular deduction is "complete". That means the deduction that marks "XX as the culprit" was "accurate at that moment in time". And then in Meakashi-hen, we are suddenly given a lot of new information that weren't present in Watanagashi-hen. So appropriately, the fact that "the true culprit is someone else" can be easily understood.
After reading through Meakashi-hen, the reader would likely think this revised solution is correct. However, at the time of Watanagashi-hen, he or she would not have been able to come up with this solution. Nonetheless, the solution that is constructed in Watanagashi-hen is not wrong in itself, even though the identity of the true culprit is wrong. The solution for Watanagashi-hen is entirely correct "at the time", because this is the "truth" that is constructed using the pre-existing clues "at the time". But clearly, the real oversight lies in "easily deducing the identity of the murderer at the time of Watanagashi-hen".
This is the "later Queen problem".
After the reader finishes reading Meakashi-hen and receives a concrete answer, he or she has more or less accepted this truth. Even so, if the "later Queen problem" exists, then there's no guarantee that what is being revealed in Meakashi-hen is the real truth.
As an outrageous example, let say in the future, Ryukishi07 decides to release a truth exposing arc called "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Shin", claiming that "the truth in Watanagashi-hen and Meakashi-hen are both disguises, and the real culprit is the unexpected character XX!", in addition to adding new information to the story. The new truth would obviously take over the old ones, and the truth in Meakashi-hen becomes false.
(The scary thing is that even if it's such an absurd situation, as long as one sees Watanagashi-hen, Meakashi-hen, and "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Shin" as a complete series, then everything makes sense. No matter how much new "additional information" appears, it's impossible to prove the new information is "added after the fact". Also, as long as the "later Queen problem" persists, no matter how much new information is added, it is still legitimate. That's because the existence of unknown clues "cannot be disproved".)
Although this is a bit argumentative on my part, I still want to say that the seemingly complete opposite plotlines in Watanagashi-hen and Meakashi-hen are actually the same. At the time of writing, there didn't exist any "information added after the fact". Or so I say, but it's impossible to prove whether it's true or not.
Putting it all together, what the story is trying to say, what kind of answer will one get from the story, or even the truth that the author (god) says isn't absolute. Even the truth dictated by the "author", this all powerful god, can be revised by the future self of the author, an even higher entity. That means whenever one runs into the "later Queen problem", the mystery novel would fall into an extreme predicament. The "mystery", this noble ideal in mystery novels, would in fact cause itself to be denied, which is rather ironic.
With a bit of sarcasm on my part, I call this phenomenon "Anti-Mystery".
As long as the "Devil's Proof" exists, neither we nor the detectives can disprove the existence of an "unknown evidence X". As long as the "Devil's Proof" hasn't been broken, we aren't even qualified to try inferring. Even when someone falls down dead right before our eyes, and a locked room is established, and there are suspicious evidence everywhere, we still can't begin our deduction. Be it crime scene investigation, or processing evidence, or witness testimony, what we need to clarify first and foremost is "that thing", i.e. "are we able to conduct our deduction with all the evidence we have so far".
Historically when famous detectives arrive at the crime scene, they would look up to the sky and ask the omnipotent god (author) one question, "Is this world (book) really a traditional mystery world (able to perform deduction)?" And then, god would reply, "Of course this book is a traditional mystery. You will definitely be able to solve all the riddles. Get ahead and perform your deduction." The detectives would then mumble in their minds, "Ah, that's good. Now I can rest easy and perform my deduction," and begin their investigation. [4]
The scene must surely appear in real life murder cases too. The police seals off the area, and then the inspectors clap their hands together while looking up at the sky. "God, can this case be solved? If we don't get a clear answer, we can't even begin our investigation and deduction. Because if this is an "irregular mystery" or a "realist school mystery", or even the increasingly popular "supernatural fantasy", then it's useless to perform a deduction." But this is real life, therefore god isn't going to answer.
So, should we clap our hands together until god appears? Or should we forget about the investigation since we don't have god's guidance?
When the aforementioned situation crossed my mind, I thought it was funny, but also I've discovered for the first time that the concept of "Anti-Mystery" might actually exist. Those people who treat mysteries as mathematical problems and look for logical answers might seem to be going on the right track, but they are committing a terrible error.
Without the assumption that "this mystery can be logically solved", these people can't solve the mystery. Besides, this assumption cannot possibly be established. That means without the guidance of god, these people who wildly conduct their deduction are nothing more than uncultured idiots who can't even exercise a little of their "grey cells". Their IQs are comparable to insects.
In "Umineko no Naku Koro ni", Beatrice is mocking this kind of people. Even though they are single-mindedly trying to come up with a equation-like answer, if there isn't even an assurance to the most basic possibility, they have no chance of winning. To use boxing as an analogy, it's as if a boxer is saying "I only want to fight with an opponent whom I can win". To the Witch Beatrice, those people who stubbornly claim to deny witches and expose the truth are as laughable as that boxer.
Below are comments from Beatrice.
After you have read "Umineko" EP1, are you really attempting to challenge this mystery? Because there's no declaration, then it is not considered a challenge? Because this story doesn't specify that "all the evidence are gathered", then it is not considered a challenge? Kukukuku!
How foolish. When and where have you seen this kind of proof before? During your entrance exam, do you ask the deity "will I be able to enter this school"? If the deity doesn't offer you guidance, then you are not even going to write the exam? Kufufuahahahahaha!
If your mother doesn't tell you, "good boy, you'll definitely make it," then you can't even go to the examination room? Hahahahahaha!
You seem to finally understand how cheap this human creation called "mystery" is. Then you should also be able to sympathize with my desire to laugh. Well then, welcome to the "Anti-Mystery" world.
Isn't there such a saying? "There are too many things in this world that science cannot explain." And so it is. Everything in this world cannot be completely proven! The "unknown element X" which we have not anticipated can exist; no one can disprove that.
Deduction? Mystery novels? And traditional ones? Ahahahahaha! How laughable!! Good kids, if you have bought mystery books then let Mummy read it first, and then ask her, "Are the riddles in this book something I can solve?" If Mummy nods her head, then you can go on and read. You can just eat the baby food Mummy has already chewed up for you. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------------
[1] Izanagi is the Japanese equivalent of Uranus in Greek Mythology. Legends had it that Izanagi and his wife Izanami used a spear to create the islands of Japan by plunging the spear into the ocean and then pulling it out.
[2] Honkaku Mystery, which I translated to traditional mystery novels, though perhaps not the best way to translate this. It mainly refers to mystery tales that focus on solving puzzle plots, and that these puzzles tend to be fair play, i.e. the clues necessary for solving the case are all there in the book. The entertainment value is not so much on the story but on the solving of the case. One can say that the Golden Age mystery stories usually fall under this category. Notably authors include Ellery Queen and Agatha Christie.
[3] I couldn't find the proper English term for this for some reason. Anyway, the "Queen" here refers to Ellery Queen. Apparently, this problem arose during the late period of Ellery Queen's writing.
[4] A little background on Ellery Queen's novels. In the first nine Ellery Queen mysteries, a "challenge to the reader" is included in the book just before the detective, Ellery Queen (not to be mistaken with the author), reveals the final solution. It's like putting a pause in the story for the reader's benefit, a point where the author is directly addressing to the reader. And in the challenge, they usually claim that the clues necessary for solving the mystery are all there in the book, and that the reader should be able to come up with the solution at the point through deduction, hence it is a fair play between the reader and the author.
If you think about it, this "challenge to the reader" segment is almost like the commentary between Meta-Battler and Beatrice when the main events of the game (i.e. the family conference and what not) are momentary frozen in time. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]That and Game 5 END T.T FUCK YOU GUY etc.[/spoiler]
I'm watching the show with a few friends as it airs and we're discussing it fairly extensively and I even have notes for alibis, Magic Scenes (any scene with a butterfly), and so-on. Hell, we reached the Kinzo Conclusion after Game 1 since it's pretty "IN YOUR FACE" about it, although I used the start of EP1 in my proof but that was all of a 3 minute scene that I had to share to get us on level ground.
So ... no, I'm not looking ahead. I don't know more than you outside of some small details (plus that Kinzo confirmation) that I've already posted here and most these details are things missing from the Anime (i.e., looking back, not ahead).
[spoiler]And I guess if you want, the Red Truths extension is possibly a spoiler I guess? There are global Red Truths, like Kinzo's status, and a few that are Game-specific I believe. I'm not 100% sure but I will say that the Red Truths will shed light on every game in order for there to be an Anti-Fantasy resolution thanks to Devil's Proof.
The Red Truths are our means of obtaining Devil's Proof, which makes it ironic that Beato is giving them to us but whatever (yeah, think about that for a moment). I'm adamantly anti-fantasy in the sense of the murders mostly because it is more entertaining that way; a mystery is more fun to solve than fantasy. However, the foundation of anti-fantasy is the assumption: This can be solved. Everything done to find a killer comes back to that assumption. Devil's Proof is the crux of the argument here. Until every scene can be proven and then proven to have no unfound evidence to disprove it, we're not done; my assumption needs to be proven otherwise the whole thing topples over. What a pain.[/spoiler]
By the way, Game 1-3's taglines:
EP1: The difficulty is standard. Shall we first take the easy road?
EP2: The difficulty is first-rate. The Witch intends to make you surrender with no warning
EP3: The difficulty is equal. Equal for both you and the Witch
Difficulty here referring to "The difficulty in disproving the Witch."
[spoiler]EP 4 is "You're boned."
...
EP4: The difficulty depends on you. Your style of fighting up until now will influence the difficulty[/spoiler]
And if you haven't read it yet, Ryukishi's definition on Anti-fantasy and Anti-mystery (LONG):
[spoiler]This time around, the tagline for EP3 has changed from "Deducible? Not deducible?" to "Anti-Fantasy vs. Anti-Mystery". Those who have finished reading EP3 might already understand that the world of "Umineko" is precisely as the tagline says. Although everyone has heard of "mystery" and "fantasy", you might not have heard of "anti-mystery" or "anti-fantasy". What does it mean by "anti"? Please allow me to explain.
The meaning of "Anti-Fantasy" is as the words say. "Fantastic" phenomenon cannot exist in the world we live in. Those dream-like fairy-tales are nothing more than fiction. Even if someone believes in their existence, it's really nothing more than an exaggerating, politically-inclined delusion.
Do you truly believe that Earth was created by the Creator in seven days? Do you believe that Izanagi used a spear to "dig" up the first island of Japanese archipelago? [1] Impossible. The Big Bang, collusion between asteroids, movement of land mass -- using these theories to explain how lands are formed is the plausible way to go.
To those people who love to talk about scientific theories in Japanese History or World History classes, I would like to welcome you to the world of "Anti-Fantasy". To those people who do not believe in "fantasy" at heart but who are good at conforming, I would also like to welcome you to the world of "Anti-Fantasy".
Witches and magic cannot possibly exist. Everything can only be revealed through the method of deduction. There must be a lot of people out there who believe earnestly in such view point. This thing that I call "Anti-Fantasy" is really our basic thought process, our common sense. As long as you adopt this way of thinking, there is no way you will surrender to "Umineko". Because witches and magic do not exist.
Now then, the direct explanation of "Anti-Fantasy" is complete. And now we will move on to the topic of "Anti-Mystery".
First off, before we talk about "Anti-Mystery", we need to first dive into the topic of "mystery novels". To fully explain what is a "mystery novel", this little booklet is not enough. Therefore, we shall only dabble in it briefly.
When one talks about "mystery novels", one usually means "traditional mystery novels".[2] To put in simply, traditional mystery novel is a mystery novel where the reader is able to use the information given in the story to solve the case before the solution is given out.
This is the main trend in mystery story; it's perhaps appropriate to grant it the title "traditional". Traditional mystery is a battle of wit between the author and the reader during the reading process. From this perspective, traditional mystery novels are the most entertaining one amongst genre fictions. That means high quality traditional mysteries are exactly like precise riddle games such as mathematical problems; they are the purified, enlightened condensation of many great works by famous mystery authors.
Nonetheless, purified traditional mystery will eventually run into certain obstacles, namely, a famous problem called "later Queen problem".[3] To put it simply, the "later Queen problem" concerns with the inability to determine whether the information the detective (the reader) can obtain in the story is complete or not. Good detectives normally use evidence and clues they've found to come up with a good deduction and a plausible conclusion. But an important criteria must be satisfied before the solution can be regarded as completely accurate.
That is, the evidence and clues that the detective are processing must be "complete". In most cases, the detective will thoroughly search the crime scene, and list the evidence and clues he or she has discovered. However, the possibility that "there exists a decisive evidence X which the detective is unable to unearth" cannot be denied. It means that, no matter how much the famous detective shows off his great detection skill, the solution is only "constructed together from the clues and evidence that was present at the time". To put it another way, if the "undiscovered decisive evidence X" is later added into the story, the solution the detective came up with might be struck down entirely.
Therefore, a detective not only has to come up with a solution according to the evidence, but he also has to prove that "there does not exist any undiscovered evidence". There is no further need to explain this, for this is the true "Devil's Proof". It's impossible to prove the accuracy of the solution that the detective must have come up with in the end. Even though traditional mystery ought to play out as a completely plausible puzzle game, at this point they are trapped by the fact that they cannot plausibly reveal the truth.
In "Umineko no Naku Koro ni", it was repeatedly stated that there are "only one master key", but one cannot deny the possibility that the master key has been duplicated. Even if a character were to claim it is impossible to make a duplicate, one cannot disprove the possibility that "the key has been duplicated without the speaker's knowledge." Even if the key is molded into a shape that makes it impossible to duplicate, one cannot disprove the possibility that "there are unknown technology out there that makes duplicating the key possible".
The witness might have been lying; the police might have made some blunder during the processing stage. Or a key character is bribed by the culprit, or the culprit has placed certain evidence that would lead the detective to the wrong direction (i.e. red herring). If we cannot completely exclude these "unexpected possibility", we might not even be able to discover the hints. Regrettably, these "disproving" cannot be accomplished.
Stepping back, assume that the detective (the reader) has come up with a very plausible solution, and the murderer has confessed to the crime. As long as the undiscovered evidence X still exists, one cannot disprove the possibility that "the accomplice admits to the crime in order to protect the true murderer".
In fact, a similar situation as described above has appeared in Watanagashi-hen of "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni". Before Meakashi-hen was released, almost all the readers had come up with the wrong culprit for the events that had occurred in Watanagashi-hen.
Examining Watanagashi-hen alone, when the culprit admits to the conclusion Rena comes up with in her deduction, that particular deduction is "complete". That means the deduction that marks "XX as the culprit" was "accurate at that moment in time". And then in Meakashi-hen, we are suddenly given a lot of new information that weren't present in Watanagashi-hen. So appropriately, the fact that "the true culprit is someone else" can be easily understood.
After reading through Meakashi-hen, the reader would likely think this revised solution is correct. However, at the time of Watanagashi-hen, he or she would not have been able to come up with this solution. Nonetheless, the solution that is constructed in Watanagashi-hen is not wrong in itself, even though the identity of the true culprit is wrong. The solution for Watanagashi-hen is entirely correct "at the time", because this is the "truth" that is constructed using the pre-existing clues "at the time". But clearly, the real oversight lies in "easily deducing the identity of the murderer at the time of Watanagashi-hen".
This is the "later Queen problem".
After the reader finishes reading Meakashi-hen and receives a concrete answer, he or she has more or less accepted this truth. Even so, if the "later Queen problem" exists, then there's no guarantee that what is being revealed in Meakashi-hen is the real truth.
As an outrageous example, let say in the future, Ryukishi07 decides to release a truth exposing arc called "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Shin", claiming that "the truth in Watanagashi-hen and Meakashi-hen are both disguises, and the real culprit is the unexpected character XX!", in addition to adding new information to the story. The new truth would obviously take over the old ones, and the truth in Meakashi-hen becomes false.
(The scary thing is that even if it's such an absurd situation, as long as one sees Watanagashi-hen, Meakashi-hen, and "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Shin" as a complete series, then everything makes sense. No matter how much new "additional information" appears, it's impossible to prove the new information is "added after the fact". Also, as long as the "later Queen problem" persists, no matter how much new information is added, it is still legitimate. That's because the existence of unknown clues "cannot be disproved".)
Although this is a bit argumentative on my part, I still want to say that the seemingly complete opposite plotlines in Watanagashi-hen and Meakashi-hen are actually the same. At the time of writing, there didn't exist any "information added after the fact". Or so I say, but it's impossible to prove whether it's true or not.
Putting it all together, what the story is trying to say, what kind of answer will one get from the story, or even the truth that the author (god) says isn't absolute. Even the truth dictated by the "author", this all powerful god, can be revised by the future self of the author, an even higher entity. That means whenever one runs into the "later Queen problem", the mystery novel would fall into an extreme predicament. The "mystery", this noble ideal in mystery novels, would in fact cause itself to be denied, which is rather ironic.
With a bit of sarcasm on my part, I call this phenomenon "Anti-Mystery".
As long as the "Devil's Proof" exists, neither we nor the detectives can disprove the existence of an "unknown evidence X". As long as the "Devil's Proof" hasn't been broken, we aren't even qualified to try inferring. Even when someone falls down dead right before our eyes, and a locked room is established, and there are suspicious evidence everywhere, we still can't begin our deduction. Be it crime scene investigation, or processing evidence, or witness testimony, what we need to clarify first and foremost is "that thing", i.e. "are we able to conduct our deduction with all the evidence we have so far".
Historically when famous detectives arrive at the crime scene, they would look up to the sky and ask the omnipotent god (author) one question, "Is this world (book) really a traditional mystery world (able to perform deduction)?" And then, god would reply, "Of course this book is a traditional mystery. You will definitely be able to solve all the riddles. Get ahead and perform your deduction." The detectives would then mumble in their minds, "Ah, that's good. Now I can rest easy and perform my deduction," and begin their investigation. [4]
The scene must surely appear in real life murder cases too. The police seals off the area, and then the inspectors clap their hands together while looking up at the sky. "God, can this case be solved? If we don't get a clear answer, we can't even begin our investigation and deduction. Because if this is an "irregular mystery" or a "realist school mystery", or even the increasingly popular "supernatural fantasy", then it's useless to perform a deduction." But this is real life, therefore god isn't going to answer.
So, should we clap our hands together until god appears? Or should we forget about the investigation since we don't have god's guidance?
When the aforementioned situation crossed my mind, I thought it was funny, but also I've discovered for the first time that the concept of "Anti-Mystery" might actually exist. Those people who treat mysteries as mathematical problems and look for logical answers might seem to be going on the right track, but they are committing a terrible error.
Without the assumption that "this mystery can be logically solved", these people can't solve the mystery. Besides, this assumption cannot possibly be established. That means without the guidance of god, these people who wildly conduct their deduction are nothing more than uncultured idiots who can't even exercise a little of their "grey cells". Their IQs are comparable to insects.
In "Umineko no Naku Koro ni", Beatrice is mocking this kind of people. Even though they are single-mindedly trying to come up with a equation-like answer, if there isn't even an assurance to the most basic possibility, they have no chance of winning. To use boxing as an analogy, it's as if a boxer is saying "I only want to fight with an opponent whom I can win". To the Witch Beatrice, those people who stubbornly claim to deny witches and expose the truth are as laughable as that boxer.
Below are comments from Beatrice.
After you have read "Umineko" EP1, are you really attempting to challenge this mystery? Because there's no declaration, then it is not considered a challenge? Because this story doesn't specify that "all the evidence are gathered", then it is not considered a challenge? Kukukuku!
How foolish. When and where have you seen this kind of proof before? During your entrance exam, do you ask the deity "will I be able to enter this school"? If the deity doesn't offer you guidance, then you are not even going to write the exam? Kufufuahahahahaha!
If your mother doesn't tell you, "good boy, you'll definitely make it," then you can't even go to the examination room? Hahahahahaha!
You seem to finally understand how cheap this human creation called "mystery" is. Then you should also be able to sympathize with my desire to laugh. Well then, welcome to the "Anti-Mystery" world.
Isn't there such a saying? "There are too many things in this world that science cannot explain." And so it is. Everything in this world cannot be completely proven! The "unknown element X" which we have not anticipated can exist; no one can disprove that.
Deduction? Mystery novels? And traditional ones? Ahahahahaha! How laughable!! Good kids, if you have bought mystery books then let Mummy read it first, and then ask her, "Are the riddles in this book something I can solve?" If Mummy nods her head, then you can go on and read. You can just eat the baby food Mummy has already chewed up for you. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
---------------------------
[1] Izanagi is the Japanese equivalent of Uranus in Greek Mythology. Legends had it that Izanagi and his wife Izanami used a spear to create the islands of Japan by plunging the spear into the ocean and then pulling it out.
[2] Honkaku Mystery, which I translated to traditional mystery novels, though perhaps not the best way to translate this. It mainly refers to mystery tales that focus on solving puzzle plots, and that these puzzles tend to be fair play, i.e. the clues necessary for solving the case are all there in the book. The entertainment value is not so much on the story but on the solving of the case. One can say that the Golden Age mystery stories usually fall under this category. Notably authors include Ellery Queen and Agatha Christie.
[3] I couldn't find the proper English term for this for some reason. Anyway, the "Queen" here refers to Ellery Queen. Apparently, this problem arose during the late period of Ellery Queen's writing.
[4] A little background on Ellery Queen's novels. In the first nine Ellery Queen mysteries, a "challenge to the reader" is included in the book just before the detective, Ellery Queen (not to be mistaken with the author), reveals the final solution. It's like putting a pause in the story for the reader's benefit, a point where the author is directly addressing to the reader. And in the challenge, they usually claim that the clues necessary for solving the mystery are all there in the book, and that the reader should be able to come up with the solution at the point through deduction, hence it is a fair play between the reader and the author.
If you think about it, this "challenge to the reader" segment is almost like the commentary between Meta-Battler and Beatrice when the main events of the game (i.e. the family conference and what not) are momentary frozen in time. [/spoiler]
-
Maxine MagicFox
- ItL Webmaster
- Posts: 13474
- Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
I've got a question, Scy that some of the things in that long essay sorta sparked.
[spoiler]Beatrice said there were only 5 Master Keys, for example and it appeared in red text. However, at the end of the arc we've gotten confirmation that Bernkastel/Berna and Lamda are now playing in the game.
That there are only 5 Master Keys could be a truth to Beatrice, but what if it isn't "the truth". I don't know how far these two interfere but what if Berna inserted a sixth key into the game without Beatrice's knowledge?
I guess my question is: How truthful is the Red Text? Is it a truth connected only to Beatrice or is it a truth connected to the puzzle. And is there some possible way that Beatrice could be wording some things to make it a truth by omitting other facts?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Beatrice said there were only 5 Master Keys, for example and it appeared in red text. However, at the end of the arc we've gotten confirmation that Bernkastel/Berna and Lamda are now playing in the game.
That there are only 5 Master Keys could be a truth to Beatrice, but what if it isn't "the truth". I don't know how far these two interfere but what if Berna inserted a sixth key into the game without Beatrice's knowledge?
I guess my question is: How truthful is the Red Text? Is it a truth connected only to Beatrice or is it a truth connected to the puzzle. And is there some possible way that Beatrice could be wording some things to make it a truth by omitting other facts?[/spoiler]
[] - [] - [] - []
Return to “Discussion Section”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests