* Release date: 8 2008
Regarding Anti-mystery and Anti-fantasy
In EP3 of this time, I tried to change the catch copy phrase at the back cover, ‘is reasoning possible or impossible’, to ‘anti-mystery vs anti-fantasy.
I think it’s already comprehensible to those who have finished this EP3 but, the world view of ‘Umineko no Naku Koro Ni’ goes just as this catch copy.
Well, mystery and fantasy are probably words you hear oftenly but, when it comes to and anti-mystery and anti-fantasy, I think there are not much chances for it to be heard.
What would be the general ideas behind ‘anti’?
That’s what I’d humbly like to enumerate here.
Regarding anti-fantasy, probably there isn’t anything special to talk about.
In this world we live, fantasy and such are impossible.
No matter what kind of fancy fairy-tale it is, in the end, they are just a work of fiction.
Even if it is realistic, they have exaggerations in some things and are only politcal and made-up stories.
Don’t you tell me that you seriously believe that Earth was made in 7 days by the Creator? Or that Izanagi-no-Mikoto (see wikipedia) created the Japanese islands with his spear…? it’s obvious that we can explain those with the combination of the big-bang with meteorites and the rising of lands by means of the interference of the (tectonic) plates, huh.
To the ones who are able to openly declare that during the classes of Japan history and world history, be welcome, I present you the world of the ‘anti-fantasy’.
The people who pretend to believe those things to keep the appearances, for being able to read the atmosphere, even though they don’t believe it, too, please, be welcome to the world of ‘anti-fantasy’.
There’s no way witches and magic do exist.
In everything, we can expose the truth through reasoning.
Most of people should believe that.
In other words, that is our basic format, the common sense.
You guys would never surrender to ‘Umineko no Naku Koro Ni’.
Because there’s no way witches and magic do exist.
Such an extremely natural explanation for ‘anti-fantasy’ ends here and finally let’s start to talk about the ‘anti-mystery’.
First, before talking about anti-mystery, we have to talk about the mystery.
To talk about what is a mystery, a thin booklet like this wouldn’t have enough pages.
Because of that, I’d like to advance the talk in an extremely simple way here.
Basically, when we say ‘mystery’, this points out to the ‘authentic mystery’.
To explain it in a rough and yet simple way, the classical mystery denominates something where it’s possible for the reader to reach the correct answer through the information exposed in the middle of the story, without waiting for the ‘in-play’ answers.
This is the main idea of the mystery and certainly it is appropriate to name it ‘authentic’.
It means that at the same time it is a reading material, it is also an intelligence contest between the writer and the reader.
In that sense, I think it is possible to understand an authentic mystery as being the one genre that looks the most like a game among all novel genres.
In other words, a high-grade authentic mystery should be a complete arithmetic puzzle game.
And this fact should have been sublimated in high-grade by means of the many masterpieces of the famous writers.
However, a sublimated authentic mystery soon runs into a certain problem.
That is a difficult and famous problem, called ‘last part queen problem’.
Explaining it in an extremely simply way, the ‘last part queen problem’ says it is impossible to prove by oneself that the information that the detective (reader) is able to know is ‘everything’ there is to it.
A great detective would probably use all the hints and evidences given to him and produce brilliant deductions and logical views.
However, it’s necessary one prerequisite so that his deduction is correct.
And that would be to say that the all evidences and hints investigated by the detective must be ‘complete’.
In most cases, the detective thoroughly investigates the scene of the crime, finds all the evidences and hints and then lists them.
We can’t deny the existence of a ‘conclusive evidence X that the detective did not find yet’.
In other words, no matter what kind of brilliant deduction the great detective reached, that would be nothing more than a ‘construction from evidences and hits at that point in time’.
In other words, if an undiscovered and conclusive evidence X were taken into consideration, it would not be possible to deny the possibility that the deduction the detective did reach could be turned upside down.
In other words, in addition to working out a deduction from the many evidences, it was born the obligation for the detective to stablish proof that ‘there are no evidences undiscovered’.
And, needless to say, to prove this is exactly a ‘Devil’s Proof’ (probatio diabolica).
…… In other words, it means it ended up coming to light that it’s not possible for the detective to prove that his deduction is correct.
The authentic mystery, that should be completely logical, in spite of that, this time, fell into the dilemma of not being able to show an answer logically.
No matter how much, during the story, one explains that ‘there’s one master key’, we can’t deny the possibility that there are copies of the master key.
Even if one explain it is impossible, we can never deny the possibility that ‘a copy was made without that character’s knowledge’.
Even if they explain that it has a shape that is impossible to make a copy, it doesn’t reach the point of denying th existence of a ‘not yet known technology that can copy it even so’.
The first discoverer in the scen of the crime might be lying, the judgement results of the police might be wrong.
They may have been bribed by the criminal or are covering something to lead the detective into a wrong deduction…
If we don’t deny completely those things and ‘all possibilities aside from the ones assumed’, we could not even reach the presentation of the problem.
However, needless to say, it is impossible.
Saying it in an extreme way, even if the detective (reader) were to reach an extremely logical deduction and there was a scene where the criminal recognizes it and gives in.
…… We cannot deny the possibility that a lethal and undiscovered evidence X remains and, moreover, an accomplice made a fake confession to protect the real criminal and took the blame in his place.
Actually, in ‘Watanagashi-hen’ of ‘Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni’, too, there is a point where this dilemma is used as a motif.
Actually, before the announcement of ‘Meakashi-hen’, almost all the readers should have been wrong about the criminal of ‘Watanagshi-hen’.
That is because with ‘Watanagashi-hen’ alone, it was depicted a scene where the criminal recognized Rena’s deduction and so, that deduction was ‘concluded’ there.
In other words, __ is the criminal and ‘the deduction at that time was correct’.
In spite of that, in ‘Meakashi-hen’, many new informations, unknown at the time of ‘Watanagashi-hen’, were revealed and, as a result of that, it is revealed that a different character was the real criminal.
It was probably a valid solution to the readers who had finished reading until ‘Meakashi-hen’ but, at the time of ‘Watanagashi-hen’, it was impossible to deduce that.
However, while it may be true, the deduction construction at the time of ‘Watanagashi-hen’ was ‘not an error’.
Even if you reached the wrong criminal, that deduction was correct ‘at that time’.
Because, at that time, it was a ‘genuine’ solution obtained using all the existing ingredients available.
But, one thing is certain.
The specification of the criminal at the stage of ‘Watanagashi-hen’ was wrong.
This is the ‘last part queen problem’.
And then, the reader should have finished reading Meakashi-hen, obtained a definite answer and managed to get a certain amount of understanding of it.
However, even so.
Even finishing the reading of ‘Meakashi-hen’, there’s no guarantee that that was the right truth.
As long as there is the ‘last part queen problem’.
It’s just an extremely irrational example but, if, in later years, Ryuukishi07 were to write the Truth Clarification Chapter, ‘Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni Truth’, and then announced it ‘adding not yet known new information as appendix’ such as ‘The truth of ‘Watanagashi-hen’ and ‘Meakashi-hen’ were disguised, in fact, the criminal was the unexpected character ___!’, it would be overwritten as the correct truth and it would be possible to distort even the truth of ‘Meakashi-hen’.
(Dreadfully, even this unfair thing would become fair in case we considered these 3 chapter, ‘Watanagashi-hen’, ‘Meakashi-hen’ and ‘Truth Clarification Chapter’, as only one piece of work.
No matter what kind of appendix information it is, it is impossible to prove whether it was added later or not.
And then, as long as there is the ‘last part queen problem’, it will be allowed to add new information later as much as one wants.
After all, it is impossible to deny the existence of undiscovered information.)
I’ll write it sounding like an excuse, but, obviously, ‘Watanagashi-hen’ and ‘Meakashi-hen’ are the two views of the same scenario.
There won’t be any settings added later.
…… Naturally, even if I say it here, it’s impossible to prove the authenticity of what I said.
In other words, what I want to say is that, whatever is the answer, even the truth (oracle) according to the writer (god)!, they are not absolute.
The truth can be altered many times over by the hands of a META being of a higher stratum than even the supreme god of the story, the writer, this meta-being being the writer himself in the future.
In other words, it’s an extremely rough argument but, as long as we talk about ‘last part queen problem’, we’ll collapse into the dilemma of the mystery being an impossible puzzle.
How ironic it is for the mystery to have reached the point of denying its own existence, as the result of having tried to be pure as a mystery….
I call this ‘anti-mystery’, including the ironic sense in it.
Regarding the Meta Rules
As long as there is the ‘Devil’s proof’, we and the detective can never deny an evidence X, yet to be discovered.
As long as the ‘Devil’s proof’ is not broken, we won’t even be able to obtain the qualifications to challenge the mystery.
People die before your eyes, secret rooms are constructed, doubtful evidences roll around, and in spite of that, we can’t start the deductions.
Instead of investigations in the scenes of the crimes, scrutinies of evidences and testimonies from the local where they were first discovered!
We have to check ‘that’ before anything else.
‘That’ is, in other words, …… ‘whether it is possible or not to make deductions with all the evidences in this place now’!
Historical great detectives look up at the skies at the scenes of the crimes and, before anything, ask to the almighty god (writer).
” Is this world (piece of work), an authentic mystery (possible to deduce)?!”
Then, God answers like this.
” Yeah, this piece of work is an authentic mystery.
So, it’s definitely possible for you to solve it as well, relax and make your deductions.”
Then, when the detective thinks ‘Aah, good to hear it’, relaxes and is able to challenge the mystery, he strokes down his chest and finally begins to investigate the scene of the crime.
Even in real murder cases, certainly a scene like this might happen too.
After the police blocks the circumference of the scene of the crime and keeps the media at a distance, the detectives clap their hands and look up at the skies.
” Aah, God!
Would it be possible to solve this case?!
If you don’t tell us that, we won’t be able to investigate or make deductions…!!
After all, if it is an irregular mystery or a *bizarre/social mystery*, not to say if it is a fantasy romance in vogue now, it won’t make any sense even if we try to make deductions!”
*(Shakaiha Mystery, bizarre is imprecise but I can’t find a better words here)
However, since it is as a real life problem.
God doesn’t answer to them.
Then, could it be that they will keep on clapping hands until there is a revelation?
If there’s no revelation, the investigations will close?
When calling this situation to mind, and jokingly thought ‘Aah, what a stupidity, this is an idiocy!!’, for the first time, I realized that the notion of ‘Anti-mystery’ is something possible.
The human beings try to rationally seek arithmetic answers in all the riddles.
At first glance, it looks intellectual but, in fact, that is a big mistake.
‘Unless there is the premise that that riddle is something we can obtain the correct answer rationally’, the human beings are unable to challenge the riddle.
And such a premise will never be given.
In other words, while the human beings boast that they domineer intellectuality and can deduce mysteries, in practice, without a certificate from God, they don’t have brains, thoughts or ideas, they are ignorant, inept, unrefined, unable to use even a fragment of their ‘gray brain cells’.
It means they have nothing but an intelligence of the same level as a paramecium.
What Beatrice sneers at in ‘Umineko no Naku Koro Ni’ is exactly that.
While enthusiastic about seeking arithmetic answers in everything, in spite of that, if it is not guaranteed that that is possible, they can’t even challenge it.
Comparing it with boxing, it would be like a boxer saying that he only wants to fight with an opponent that he was guaranteed that he can win.
To the witch Beatrice, the human beings who are enthusiastic about denying the witch and disclose the truth rationally look this much laughable.
When you finished the EP1 of ‘Umineko No Naku Koro Ni’, were you really able to challenge the mystery?
You hesitated in the challenge just because there was no word about whether it was authentic or not, didn’t you?
You hesitated in the challenge just because there was no proof that all the evidences were shown, didn’t you?
Care to tell me where and when in your life did you have a proof like that?
When you took examinations to enter high school, if you did not received a revelation that you’d pass the exam, upon asking it to God, you wouldn’t be able to pass? Kuuhiihyaahahahahahahaha…!
You mean that if your mama had not said ‘my little boy will surely pass the exam!’, you would not have been able to pass the exaaaam??
You managed to understand that how the mysteries the humans talk about are worthless.
And, if you managed to understand my will to laugh, you are welcome to the world of the ‘anti-mystery’.
They oftenly say that ‘in this world, there are many things science can’t explain’, right?
It is impossible to prove perfectly everything in this world.
It is always possible to suppose a not yet known X that we did not suppose.
And nobody can deny that!
When the little boy buys a new book at the mystery library, he should ask his Mama to read it first.
And then, you should just ask to her ‘is it possible for me to solve this book too?’ and when Mama nodded to you, you would read.
It’d be good for you to eat only the baby food your Mama chewed for youuu, Uuhyeehyaahyaahyaahyaaaa!!
— That why I tell Milady, such a thing has no class.
We could say that the ‘red truth’ Beatrice-sama uses is an antithesis against that.
The things she said with the ‘red truth’ are just as the words of a god.
Without any kind of evidence or proof, it becomes the truth.
If she said, with the red truth, that ‘the door can only be unlocked with the master key’, it’d become completely unnecessary to make suppositions besides that.
It’d be unnecessary to make suppositions of pulling it from inside with lock pickings or fishing lines.
if she had continued to add saying in red that ‘the number of master keys is 5 and it is only possible to unlock it with them.
And that duplications are impossible’, it would become even more perfect.
But, let’s be bold and leave the best to the end.
It is impoosible to prove whether the ‘red truth’, that calls itself as the truth, is really the real truth, even for the Milady.
I guess there are people among you all who are still in doubt whether Milady’s ‘red truth’ can really be trusted.
In this world, a truth that you can prove to be the truth doesn’t exist.
So, if you ask whether you can believe that truth or not, it will probably end up becoming a question like this.
‘Can you believe her?”
Probably, before long, you too will call for a person you love to be your companion.
And then, at the day of the commitment, you should certainly be asked that question by the priest.
Could it be that, even at that time, you will want to say you can’t prove that the truth she says is the truth……? … Puukukukukukuku.
In order to deny the witch, you have to challenge a game between a witch and a human.
However, to deal with that, you have to believe that the witch’s ‘red truth’ is certainly the truth.
Even though it is a game to challenge the witch, and you don’t believe her, that you have to believe the witch’s utterance is quite a laughable contradiction.
When you heard for the first time about the rule of the ‘red truth’ and asked if you could trust that, Milady said this.
‘ I am playing this game with you.
The rules of the game are sacred!! A person who makes light of that is not qualified to take part!!’
In the end, you and Milady have a relation tied by a sacred reliance.
Something even a demon would be jealous.
There isn’t any truth in this world.
Even ‘love’, reputed to be the sole element of this world, in the nd, is an illusion.
The humans who try to explain everything as mystery and try to deny the fantasy might not be qualified to love and to be loved.
Are you ‘anti-fantasy’? Or ‘anti-mystery’?
Hohou? Are you using it conveniently, according to the situation?
That might be the wisest thing to do, I guess.
With the exaggerated tales of prowess of the friends, use the anti-fantasy.
At the times you want to get drunk with inappropriate dreams, use anti-mystery.
In the nights you can’t sleep, use an antimony music box of a gentle timbre.
Then, have a good sleep, everyone….