Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:umineko [2025-10-11 07:42:14] – [How Umineko is Incoherent] ninjasr
+++ lb:umineko [2025-10-20 14:02:12] (current) – [The Red Truths] Re-formatted the presentation to be more aesthetically pleasing. Also fixed an error. ninjasr
@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 Now let's explain it. Let's assume we have the following Red Truth: **Jessica killed Rudolph.**
-Most people would assume that that means that Rudolph was killed by Jessica, right? However, because a Red Truth is fine as long as one of any possible interpretations is true...heh.\\  //Who// is ‘Jessica’? Does it refer to the person whose name it is? Does it refer to someone pretending to be Jessica? Does it refer to a persona taken up by another person? Is it a fictional character? Is it even a person?\\  //What// does ‘killed’ actually mean? Does it mean that someone was literally killed? Does it mean that someone was killed metaphorically? Is ‘killed’ hyperbolic? //Who// is ‘Rudolph’? We already went over that.
+Most people would assume that that means that Rudolph was killed by Jessica, right? However, because a Red Truth is fine as long as one of any possible interpretations is true...heh.\\  //Who// is ‘Jessica’? Does it refer to the person whose name it is? Does it refer to someone pretending to be Jessica? Does it refer to a persona taken up by another person? Is it a fictional character? Is it even a person?\\  //What// does ‘killed’ actually mean? Does it mean that someone was literally killed? Does it mean that someone was killed metaphorically? Is ‘killed’ hyperbolic?\\
+//Who// is ‘Rudolph’? //We already went over that//.
 Because of how much is up to interpretation, it's entirely possible that nobody died and neither Jessica nor Rudolph were involved. And somehow George is dead.
@@ Line 166: / Line 167: @@
 Let's make a list of Red Truths:
+<div card vstack warning center-text>
+**Janet died in the room.**
-  * **Janet died in the room.**
+**Janet was dead in the kitchen.**
-  * **Janet was dead in the kitchen.**
-  * **Janet was killed by Katie.**
-  * **The murder was committed with a knife.**
-  * **Janet didn't die by suicide.**
-  * **Janet died at 12:00.**
-  * **Janet made tea at 1:00 PM.**
+**Janet was killed by Katie.**
+**The murder was committed with a knife.**
+**Janet didn't die by suicide.**
+**Janet died at 12:00.**
+**Janet made tea at 1:00 PM.**
+</div>
 Now, keep in mind that the story itself reportedly does what I'm about to do. This may look pretty “case-closed”, but remember that a Red Truth is true as long as one of any interpretations is true.
@@ Line 193: / Line 200: @@
 //Umineko// breaks its promise to the audience – of being a mystery story with solvable mysteries – by being narratively incoherent. Because what happens in Umineko can be interpreted any way you desire – because there is //literally// no way to tell what is or isn't real – that means that Umineko has //many// (to put it lightly) possible interpretations. And since there's no way to tell which interpretation is better or worse, that means that there is no actual solution to any of the mysteries.
-That isn't even mentioning the fact that Umineko breaks the rules of fair play – it cites the Knox Decalogue but the official solution violates it. Even if we consider that the Knox Decalogue isn't absolute, Umineko still fails to be fair because everything can be interpreted however you want.
+That isn't even mentioning the fact that Umineko breaks the rules of fair play – it cites the [[lb:Knox Decalogue]] but the official solution violates it. Even if we consider that the Knox Decalogue isn't absolute, Umineko still fails to be fair because everything can be interpreted however you want.
 At best it misleads the audience with the Red Truths and at worst it straight-up lies to them. Some people might think that insulting the audience by lying to them is a good (or neutral) thing and those people are, frankly, not very smart.