Umineko: When They Cry/WMG/Colored Text: Difference between revisions

** {{<span style="color|:blue|;">Every statement includes an implicit assertion of its own truth. Thus, "This statement is false." is equivilentequivalent to "This statement is true and this statement is false." The second statement is a contradiction and thus false. The second statesmentstatement and the first statmentstatement are eqivilentequivalent. Thus, the phrase "This statement is false." will simply be treated as a lie, Beato will be unable to say it in red, but will suffer no further consequences}}</span>

This is an extension of the idea that there are two people named Ushironomiya Battler due to the events in EP 4. <span style="color:red;">Any Red Truth which uses the name 'Battler' can refer to anyone by the name of Battler.</span>} {{<span style="color|:blue|;">As shown by EP 4 there is at least one other person who was named Battler, the alive or dead status does not matter, the important point is that this person existed. Thus any red text using the name 'Battler' could refer to this other Battler, this allows for such possibilities as Battler being the murderer.}}</span>

* <span style="color:red;">Knox's 1st! It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story! A person that was not first introduced in</span> {{<span style="color|:blue|;">the first game}}</span> <span style="color:red;">cannot be named as the culprit! Furthermore, it has been stated in Red that "Battler-kun is not the culprit. Battler-kun didn't kill anyone. This can be said of all games."</span> {{<span style="color|:blue|;">Because it was stated in Red that the 'Battler' seen in all games so far, including the meta-world Battler, is not the culprit, he is ruled out until we receive a statement in Gold that Virgilia was not referring to the 'Battler' that was in every game plus meta-Battler. Furthermore, because the second 'Battler' was not introduced in EP1, it is impossible for him to be the culprit due to Knox's 1st!}}</span> I acknowledge the possibility that Knox's Decalogue does not apply to any of the games, <span style="color:red;">but the possibility that Knox's Decalogue '''DOES'does'' apply to the games still stands until disproven in Gold by the Game Master!</span> <span style="color:red;">Even if it is stated in Red, it will not work unless the Game Master states it in Gold!</span>

** {{<span style="color|:blue|;">This also means that there can be multiple Battlers as long as none of them is the culprit, so Knox's 1st does not apply. That means that the term 'Battler', and anything said about 'Battler', can be applied to any individual named 'Battler'.}}</span> also... <span style="color:red;">I can't trust Knox's Decalogue if it arbitrarily skips the whole 'Chinaman' rule...</span>

It has to do with those damn [[From a Certain Point of View|certain points of view]], and the possibility that {{<span style="color|:blue|;">you might not know what you were saying in red}}</span>.

To explain that last part (and this is not a WMG, it is a completely hypothetical situation intended only to clarify; please do not attempt to prove or disprove it), assume that Maria unknowingly has an alternate personality called "Beatrice the Golden", who may or may not be based on an actual person. Maria kills someone in her "Beatrice" personality then reverts to her "Maria" persona, and when confronted over it, says <span style="color:red;">"Maria did not do this. Beatrice did."</span> What Maria meant when she said that is "This murder was committed by a person named Beatrice, who is completely distinct from Maria Ushiromiya." {{<span style="color|:blue|;">If the Red Truth cared what she meant, she would not be able to say this, as it would be false. However, she can say it}}</span>, because the [[Exact Words]] can be interpreted as "This murder was committed by 'Beatrice', who is not 'Maria' (note the quotes!)."

So what does this have to do with the supernatural? Consider the statement <span style="color:red;">"Witches and sorcerers exist."</span> There are multiple definitions of the word "witch", {{<span style="color|:blue|;">any of which may be applied to this statement, regardless of what the speaker intended to say}}</span>:

# {{<span style="color|:blue|;">At least one Ushiromiya can cast spells.}}</span>

# {{<span style="color|:blue|;">At least one Ushiromiya is deluding themselves into thinking they can do magic.}}</span>

# <span style="color:red;">At least one Ushiromiya believes in magic and tries to use it.</span> {{<span style="color|:blue|;">Whether they actually can or not is irrelevant.}}</span>

# {{<span style="color|:blue|;">At least one member of the Ushiromiya family practices Wicca.}}</span>

# {{<span style="color|:blue|;">This universe operates according to all known scientific laws. Magic therefore does not exist except as parlor tricks and delusions.}}</span>

# {{<span style="color|:blue|;">This universe operates according to known and unknown natural laws. If magic exists, it follows those laws and cannot be strictly called a "supernatural element".}}</span>

# {{<span style="color|:blue|;">There is an organization attempting to exterminate the supernatural. That organization's rules forbid supernatural elements.}}</span>

* <span style="color:red;">I respectfully disagree with the OP. At first I thought this WMG was pure, unbridled genius,</span> {{<span style="color|:blue|;">but the principle that the red text didn't take the actual meaning of the speaker into account doesn't make sense.}}</span>

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but <span style="color:red;">from what I remember, Battler couldn't say "Ushiromiya Asumu is my mother!" in the red text.</span> {{<span style="color|:blue| ;">If your theory is correct, and the red text doesn't take into account what Battler meant,}}</span> <span style="color:red;">which was "Ushiromiya Asumu gave birth to me,"</span> {{<span style="color|:blue| ;">his words could've literally meant "Ushiromiya Asumu raised me," "Ushiromiya Asumu gave birth to me," and/or "Spiritually, I consider Ushiromiya Asumu to be my maternal figure."}}</span> <span style="color:red;">Asumu did, in fact, raise Battler, at least for a part of his life,</span> {{<span style="color|:blue|;">so, if your theory was true, he'd be able to say those words. And, because he couldn't, if your red text theory was true, it couldn't mean anything I said above. However,}}</span> <span style="color:red;">one of the interpretations listed above was most certainly true,</span> and so therefore {{<span style="color|:blue| ;">the theory is false.}}</span><ref> Sorry for the wording. I'm kind of out of it, and I tried to make it coherent, but... ;;</ref>

*** <span style="color:red;">Until someone attempted to state in red that Battler was Asumu's son, there was no indication that he wasn't.</span> {{<span style="color|:blue|;">Up to that point, the identity of his mother was itself a "cat box", and attempting to state its contents in red caused a collapse of the waveform. If the Red Truth transferred the speaker into a kakera where the red was true, it would have forced the waveform to collapse in the other direction, moving him to a kakera where he ''is'' Asumu's son but events otherwise happened identically.}}</span>

It's not that it's telling complete lies, but the red truth can be manipulated into being used for untrue statements, not necessarily outright lies. The trick is in punctuation. Sometimes, when red truths are spoken, the full stop, comma or the exclamation mark, or whatever is at the end of the sentence is not in red. This might mean that that specific statement was abruptly ended before being completed. That itself is outside of the definition of lying, but still inside the bounds of the rules of Battler's and Beatrice's game. {{<span style="color|:blue|;">It is a practice akin to 'quote mining', but you could say it's quote mining in reverse.}}</span>

<span style="color:red;">Red Truth</span>, {{<span style="color|:blue| ;">Blue Truth}}</span>.