And more pieces that don’t make sense unless you’ve read everything up to this point.

Concerning Paradoxes and Why They Cry (and drawing parallels)

At this point I ask an absurd question that is not so absurd after all, the one unofficially posed by Umineko’s philosophy that has troubled humanity since it forever – what is this concept called living and being happy. Hold whatever thoughts there may be for a bit. Someone who lives isn’t necessarily happy, but someone who is happy can be considered to be living. Living refers to the existing yet it doesn’t denote any type of positive or negative state. Someone in a coma can be considered to be ‘living’ despite being unable to move or think yet that person might be considered to be living because the individual is not dead yet. Someone who has amnesia can be considered to be living despite not remembering who he is. This ideal they call happiness is found while living but it isn’t granted because one lives.

“The paradox of happiness” as they call it. A both simple and impossible blissful state, referred to as one that can’t be obtained by pursuing it, but obtained by not searching for it. People wish to be happy, appreciated, and fulfilled. They like find joy in what they do and are proud of the decisions they make. They rejoice when their actions give them positive results. They become ecstatic when something goes right. The utmost state one wishes to obtain is to find joy and when one does one tries to keep it as long as possible as if it is something that would disappear the moment they look away, like an illusion. Happiness is fleeting and only last for a while for many, while for others they are unable to find it in their lifetime. For the luckiest individuals it last until they decide joy has left them.

Finding happiness is another of the main cores of such stories because everyone mainly lacks it. Not because it is non-existent but they only possesses small bits of it as if their happiness is “incomplete”. But is it not a common case in general? A discontented person who has a good position seeks to get a better promotion because he believes the one he has is “not good enough”, yet this quest never ends, therefore that person is not happy. The person who makes good money regularly complains about any increase of living expenses, therefore that person is not happy. The proud mother who has a good family but worries about her daughter and husband’s financial problems, therefore she is not really happy. The woman who despite having a happy family still holds grudges from her childhood; therefore that person still unhappy and thus she ruins any newfound happiness. Thus no one finds joy.

One cannot force a person to be happy because it is not a quality that can be adopted easily. One can be happy, one can be miserable, and one can also be in the middle. Such states are decided by the said person and these are decided by the events and world that person lived in, and also by how one viewed them. The state of misery is feeling absolute displeasure, while the sensation of moderate unhappiness is a daunting recurring discontentment. Happiness is the state when a person feels fulfilled and content with the world, no matter how small it may be.

The problem presented was of individuals who were ‘living’ but it didn’t mean they were happy. It was also about individuals who tried to find happiness, who failed, and who succeeded, after death even if briefly. If one wishes for bliss then..

Why Thing Don’t Go According to Plan

“Please, tell me my efforts will certainly be rewarded.” (quote)

One cannot expect a big return for little effort, can it? It would not be fair. It would not make sense. “I want this.” “I want that.” “But I don’t want to work for it. It’s too much effort.” Not worth the time unless I have a guarantee that it will happen. In reality, there are no guarantees. Nothing is carved in stone that an event is sure to happen. There is no reward without effort. It was the same for the capricious witch that would ignore vague requests wishing to be famous or influential without any effort from their part.

But if we do something right should we immediately be praised for our efforts? A reward is not always given when a good deed is done. It’s far more common to be quick to only act when there is a mistake but not as often to praise someone for a good action. The world in the story somewhat portrays unconcern and selfishness as common in society. There are numerous problems yet they don’t seem to be solved anytime soon. There is also this “stillness” that makes it appear like they don’t ever be solved.

Maybe in all of this we mean that people are fundamentally on their own. That’s the idea one might occasionally get. Their situations are common yet unique. They are difficult to grasp and understand. “People are worlds” – that is probably the best way I can describe it. The characters are highly individualistic figures that stand out and appear alone, despite relationships, like self-contained figures. They all have pasts they cannot forget about which consequently have shaped them “into who they are now” for better or worse, often for the worse. They all live expecting to change or to make something change while they are still alive. But this is yet to happen. Each problem and situation is represented in their own world as the problem is theirs alone – so they are the only ones that can solve them.

The Gambler’s Wish, Certainty, and other Fallacies

Life is a gamble and not so metaphorically. One where we eagerly expect to obtain winnings after we bet on the decisions we make. When we lose we get frustrated, when we win we rejoice. The best decision maker makes the best possible decisions, the seasoned decision maker makes decision based on past experiences and observation, the poor decision maker continues to be one barely improving so and so on. This process continues over and over again because the procedure does not end – because the future is uncertain.

Individuality aside, is everyone different from one another because of their position or status? The powerful CEO still has to make decisions that will decide in what direction the company will go. And every now and then in a bad economy that decision might cost him his own company and be forced to become an ordinary salary man. Is the powerful CEO so different from the regular person who invested his life earnings but failed miserably? Granted, they both led different life-styles but when it came to making those decisions and facing the consequences they met similar fates. The decisions they both made led to a result.

One cannot rely on uncertainties and assume that courage and recklessness are the same. One can’t assume that luck will eventually be on one’s side all the time either. Same as the man who digs himself into an early grave as the few wins he obtains can’t match all the losses. He loses, he comes back, he loses again, and comes back again. The man cannot stay away because he stubbornly believes he can gain back what he lost. “Double or nothing”, he says. The individual who falls into the gambler’s fallacy expecting a “mystical force”, random deity, or some natural balance to help him out in his predicament, thinking the next time will be different, unaware that there is no rule that warrants a win after an X number of losses.

By the same principle that because after 99 consecutive coins flips tails isn’t guaranteed after miraculously getting nothing but heads up to that point. In actuality, the result would still be 50/50 between heads and tails by the 100th coin flip. There is no such thing as absolute certainty.

Nothing is guaranteed, not even compensation for one’s best efforts. Similar to the coin flipped by a theoretical gambler that it can go either way, even promised guarantees that were meant to be kept aren’t. Especially once things get out of control. It goes beyond human control. Also even for those supposed to be impartial to outside elements such what one would expect as surefire. Surely, no one expects it. Such thing that is impossible to predict that would require nothing short of divination. Such thing is called “uncertainty”. If so, in front of such overwhelming vagueness – does one still try? Or does one gives up?

The Theory of the 9-Digit Padlock

Uncertainty. Answers. Actually obtaining the right solutions is quite something. An “answer” can be a working combination of variables, a set of numbers or words that “only work when put together in a certain way”, which placed in any other order, give us an error message. There are numerous problems with straightforward and simple solutions everywhere, same as there are simple problems with difficult executions.

I recall several years ago the first time I tried to open a padlock. I was certain I had the right combination number but the execution was wrong. I spent several minutes trying, trying to make it work but was repetitively unsuccessful until someone came over and opened it for me. I was surprised how easy it seemed yet how strangely challenging it was to make the device work like it was intended. This made me think how something so simple could also be difficult.

Let’s imagine a 2 digit [?][?] combination with possible numbers 1-9 for each. The correct combination possibly won’t be achieved on our first, second or third try but surely, surely with enough attempts one can manage to get the right combination by trying every possible combination starting with [1][x] until [9][x].

With time and exhausting every possibility one can obtain the right “combination”, thus “the correct solution.”

This assumes that there is time and the combination is relatively straightforward. In the case where there is not enough time and the possibilities are not limited to 2 digits like the simple padlock example the situation is quite different. What if the padlock in question has a 3 digit [][][] combination instead? What do you do in this case? Even by adding “one more” digit our chances of getting the right solution like we did before significantly decreases. Then what do you do when dealing with a “9-digit padlock?” In this case guessing the solution becomes virtually impossible.

There is no meaning or point in attempting it unless one has the right combination in the first place. One has to come up with the actual solution to get the right combination. Or at least correctly figure out [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][?] the first eight out of the nine digits to be close to a solution.

This is also a metaphor for what I mean. Here, the “padlock”, the “numbers” and the “correct answer” have more than one meaning. Suppose one is dealing with a real life situation of uncertainty, a theoretical 9-digit padlock. Getting the right combination is not reasoning. It has nothing to do with obtaining a solution based on information. In this way no matter how gifted the thinker is, he won’t be able to obtain the right combination because the combination is a straight set of random numbers. Random guessing becomes senseless when one is past dealing with limited variables such as in our first examples with few digits when it was possible to exhaust the possibilities.

There are solutions that exist yet are near impossible to guess, aren’t there? They are similar to the 9-digit padlock which combination is nothing but random numbers in which guessing hardly makes a difference. Nevertheless, aren’t these “combinations” actually similar to something else? A “lock” that is opened when certain numbers are inserted or the “right” combination is applied. They are like the decisions and actions. That only work when certain actions are executed in certain ways. If they are executed correctly they open. If they are done incorrectly, they never do.

And at the same time, one can also use the idea of a [combination] to refer to an “answer” or to a “solution” of a theoretical puzzle that can be deduced by the presented pieces.

The strict concept remains – “the answer is only right when the result is the correct one”, however, as opposed to the padlock where the combination must be executed turning left or right, reasoning doesn’t necessarily have to follow a certain procedure to obtain the correct solution. The procedure varies but as long the combination is right and regardless of order, when all the pieces are put in the right places, the theoretical box opens.

Then does one know the combination in the first place? Or does one not know the combination to begin with?

As to Why Miracles are Beautiful because They Hardly Happen and Other Impossibilities

– and a miracle may happen

A miracle is a miracle because it always never happens, doesn’t it? What state would the world if everyone got what they wish for. Everyone would be rich, esthetically perfect, and globally popular. Miracles are something of “exceptions to the rules” because they shouldn’t happen. If they would normally occur then they wouldn’t be called miracles they’d be natural occurrences instead, so calling them miracles would be impossible. So for a majority of people miracles won’t be granted and they won’t witness miracles in their life time either.

Would a person believe in miracles in real life even though they’ve never seen or experience one? Isn’t there something fundamentally irrational about the matter?

I do not know of the veracity of miracles because they have never happened to me. Nothing considered a miracle has been granted. They are alien concepts from fiction, created by others. No, “to me it is like miracles don’t exist and don’t see why they would in the first place.” The idea is quite irrational. But the thought is intriguing, isn’t it? It’s as if something supernatural gives people “these chances”, these “second chances” to right a wrong or to do-over what it shouldn’t, in bizarrely rare occasions.

Isn’t also interesting being neutral to the existence of luck is considered ok, yet “bad luck” is considered superstitious? A person may not believe he has ‘good luck’ yet he can be overly conscious when he walks past a ladder or encounters a black cat. Yet he believes in these rituals after whatever initially troubled him goes away, thinking that charm probably did the trick – ignoring that it sure wasn’t that he acted with more caution the following weeks what solved the problem.

We rejoiced when something good happens to us and praise our good luck and whoever it was responsible for it. However, when the result is negative we are quick to deny these assumed “positive forces” were involved in whatever brought us bad luck. Vigorously making the clear difference between who or what we thank when the outcome is positive and when the outcomes is negative.

I pose the following, could it be that some events just happen because they do? And there is no real reason? Neither positive nor negative? “Miracles are near impossible positive events.” So the question is – would a negative event which has .1 out of 100000000 chances not be considered a miracle?

It wouldn’t, would it? No one would be overjoyed to find out that out of the millions he was one of the least fortunate. That person would not consider himself or herself lucky. A miracle is considered something impossibly good, a level that is above any positive adjective, one who is ultimately fortunate. It would be impossible for the individual to consider that the most unlikely tragedy, “the antithesis of miracles”, had been granted to them because that is not the definition of a miracle. After all, we are talking about a miracle and a miracle can *only* be positive in nature.

In effect, miracles are only miracles when they do us good. That is why people seek it when they are the only one which can solve problems with no solutions. A miracle is, roughly speaking, supposed to be able “solve an unsolvable problem”, problems that have no solution at the given time.

A miracle from anyone’s perspective is the culmination of the best outcome possibly conceivable. In a few words, miracles are beautiful because they are solutions to impossible problems and because they hardly happen.

An Old Forgotten Recollection of Fragments

Let’s get a bit more metaphysical. Suppose that someone in their very early years just barely knowing how the world functioned wondered how the sun worked. Thinking there was a starting point for something like the sun somewhere, no matter how far away it seemed, did a test on one those odd days when the sky is orange. After moving a fair distant, which in theory wasn’t much, realizes that such feat was impossible after all so stops and heads back.

You know what is one interesting detail yet very evident about this early experiment? When that person looked back the sun was still in the /same position/ as if one had not walked a single step. Naturally, this is logical, after all. The sun is not on earth, it is a star, so in actuality it is impossible to actually reach it no matter the distance or years one walks. From the sun’s perspective one would walking in circles, from that person’s perspective it looked like walking towards it. Do you see the immense difference? No matter how fast a person runs, reaching the star on the horizon is virtually impossible. But there was no way one could comprehended this right away when such elementary concept wasn’t fully introduced, neither was the concept of impossibility.

There is a somewhat positive unique quality to this story. Because such are the originally strange (now inconceivable) experiences are only goes through when one hasn’t yet learned how the world works before one grows older and learns about the world and these former “mysteries” become common knowledge and dull trivia to the point of possibly making this short story even more absurd than it is.

Nevertheless, let me remind you that this is only absurd today as the sun was a mystical figure from someone’s perspective who barely understood it in the past. Such was the case for older civilizations which considered it a god. Now everybody knows that it is the star of this solar system that provides us with light and life, one which seems like rises from one point and disappears in another but in reality it is just the earth rotating. But back then it must have seemed like pure magic.

The point of this story is that everybody has experienced such things in some way or another – from mistaking shadows for monsters, random sounds for creatures or spirits, or believing old stories and legends to be real. At one point in their lives, these misconceptions of what exists and what doesn’t, walked a very fine line. Then at some point, everyone realizes the “reality” they live in and accept it.

One would associate this notion to the “rabbits on the Moon” on terms of irrationality and impossibilities. What seems irrational right now may not have been in the past. It’s not true to say it isn’t so other than because of strong pride. People learn as they go bit by bit. Only when they /gain/ certain knowledge one starts to deny these notions, thus consider them absurd because none of them can be or could have been real at any time. This is what it means to stop believing in the existence of the unlikely or “impossible elements” because they can’t be and couldn’t have been true.

Concerning Reality Which is Both What is in Front of us and Not

No one, no creature, is already all-knowing and wise in the ways of the world the moment they are born, they learn about the world, then later form an idea, is a long process. It is years later that you get your answer about why the sky happens to be blue. It’s later that you realize that there is something like the sea and how they were formed. It’s only later that you learn in actuality how phones or electricity work instead of thinking “that’s how just they work”.

Such events, what seemed like magic, surprise us because we didn’t imagine that those things worked differently than we originally thought.

I repeat that it’s not possible to reach a star on the horizon by walking, same as it is a safe bet that there are no rabbits on the moon as any logical and informed person knows. These are not debatable. Nonetheless, the point is not that there can’t be rather the idea of discarding one’s notions because of others, making one acknowledge what is true and false, even those that don’t always need to or those which actually are not.

While, many early notions may be born from misguided conclusions and proved false, some of them might still be true despite overwhelming odds saying otherwise. Denying its existence is what makes them untrue in the person’s eyes, therefore they become completely false as result. They transform into “absolute truths” because everyone believe them.

One can’t shake the feeling that something seems to be lost while this process happens. On one hand, there is updating one’s notions, on the other there is discarding part of oneself while doing so. Is it actually better? Is necessary? Is it progress? Just the way it is intended? One of them might be it. So who cares about past irrational convenient delusions, anyhow? Wouldn’t it be better to stomp these deluded notions once and for all? Why not step in and do everyone a favor and “kill the magic?” If you can, why shouldn’t you? If not, encourage it? Or take the disinterested route and leave them to their personal illusions?

In not so many words, “Illusions to Illusions”

Like the rhetorical questions above this one has real answer – but isn’t it still an illusion? Perhaps I can’t answer this very well. Very well, then. I agree that I am one of those blobs of anti-magic toxic unable to see what isn’t in front of themselves like many. Nevertheless, I disagree on the options above. Maybe because of a disposition to neutrality that neither seeks senseless conflict nor supports notions I don’t truly believe in. But I will say that after everything is said and done there *is* something wrong when a part is discarded to gain something else, especially when that part was once important. There is an uncomfortable sensation that something could be been prevented or whether or not it was necessary to begin with.

And this..*this* something that appeared several times in these years while reading – the idea of losing part of oneself as one makes sense of the world and as one tries to find a place in the world. Not a lost naivety but a once unique way to look at things with clear, fascinated, and unbiased eyes before the flat rationality sets in. When everything was once possible, a sort of limitless idea of the universe where, even if temporary, at some point they might have existed – even if still fictional nonetheless.

If such thing could exist, then one could call that “magic.”

The End of a Golden Era (and Who Killed the Detective in the Room)

The question was what is truth? Is it something that can be acquired? Something that exists? Do you buy it at a store, with money? It is then obtained from others? Something that is final?

The tormented last survivor who hasn’t moved on with her life because it is impossible for her, comes back as a girl to a theoretical reality where she finds her truth. What is the truth? The reality she wishes to accept based on her progress up to that point. Both positive and negative experiences are measured against the other and combined resulting in a final decision. What she accepts, what she refuses to accept. That is her world. A personal decision. Lastly, the evil witch who commends her to damnation, a result where her goal is death and an innumerable number of starved goats devour the world..

Are the readers so different from those starved goats who would wish for a tragedy to continue instead of letting it finish? To let it continue means for the murders to continue with no end and the characters to become both culprits and victims for all eternity as well as the destruction of the original game board. They’ll act the same but in reality they’ll be no different than your chess set purchased at a local store, plastic, soulless. So we could have something that never reaches an end? I admit I once considered that before the final chapter because I was more than already accustomed to the game. Dawn made a statement. Requiem made it clear – the game could not go on any further. By the time EP8 appeared the game had run its course and it was past overdue. The tale had to end. All one had to do was accept it. No matter how one felt about it, there are things that are good because they end and this was the end.

When looking for truth one found there were more out there who didn’t want or cared for answers even those who initially were interested in it. Instead used rhetoric and other explanations to stop looking for answers, the game then became stagnant. Finally, even the story and the author were against it. At one point, it was no longer what it was since the original idea was to have a real showdown with the author.

When the other player no longer plays to win, there is no reason to continue a game. Without a problem to solve, there is no longer a need for someone to solve it. At some point, the theorist grows tired. Truth is, that the theorist has become exhausted for a good while. Same was for me, I’ve spent many hours composing these entries more than I can count. I’ve given this much thought to these last entries, equally so, more than I wish to mention.

As anyone can see this section is for all countless armchair detectives out there who tackled this problem because they found something interesting. Though, concerning true solutions are by now a moot point this part still must be mentioned.

The Solution According to Fiction

And a final answer? And that, that would means providing a definite answer to a problem with unknown solution, wouldn’t it?

Perhaps the lesson is something one is not often accustomed to – to not obtain an answer for everything. Although, the problems found in books, trivia, and the puzzles solved by logic can have strange answers, they are still within one’s grasp. A poignant reminder, that no matter the amount of knowledge one accumulates, there are still many mysteries that eludes us. Many of them will forever remain that way.
Then perhaps there is some beauty in not knowing at all, so that in doing so the charm of it is never lost in such a way that it walks a fine line between “what it is” and “what it could be”.

So also it is the case for many parts of life where one chooses to either do or not to. Think so or not. Such as the white lie that provides comfort, or the bliss of not knowing. Then.. then perhaps there is some forgotten beauty in the intangible magic that everything and everyone carries. The simplest acts that would otherwise be ignored or given little credit.

It was not neither magic nor the uncooperative players nor the audience who failed the detective but its own limit to see beyond himself. To consider what only wanted to and and only see what it wanted to see. To prove only what she wanted to prove and so falls into circular reasoning and the like. And that while deduction and logic are powerful and effective in their own right, they are not absolute. And that at times they can amount to almost zero. It was not who killed the detective in the room as much as it was “what” this faceless figure forgot, lacked, was unable to understand, and moreover see. Realizing it has not been about who but “what” killed magic in the first place. It was that the detective is incomplete.

The late realization of neither logical nor complex problems but of common facts. That something that has no real known solutions and without solid proof and confirmation everything is no more than conjecture. Because plenty of situations are like that and not as conveniently designed as theoretical puzzles. And so inside one’s theoretical box the answer is whichever one prefers – because at the end of the day, isn’t that what matters. The moment magic, not the supernatural force, but intangible driving forces behind everything, die – is the moment they end. They then become mere fiction.

On that note, after having written this much I don’t think of myself a devoted reader and my interest in the mystery genre doesn’t run too deeply. After having read my fair share, by far not enough by extremely versed mystery fans’ standards I concluded this as well. Not for the lack of appeal by far as it provides immense ground for theory making but because the realm of problem solving is too broad to be contained in a single field. My interest in mystery novels was not entirely in the genre itself but the field it covers that is dearly what we have been using and talking about all along – problem solving and possibilities.

Because few of the fictional characters feel realistic, few of the culprits were memorable, and there was no real reason to solve the puzzle more than for the satisfaction of doing so. This was true as it concerns me as they were more logical problems for the mind to solve more than complete works. This is far from taking away from the genre as it may sound, but to categorically emphasize the realization I would have missed had I not read any of them and engaged in these detective novels Because it is only after going through this golden era of fictional stories that it becomes evident a lack of essence in them.

Perhaps this is all philosophical drivel, nonsense, but there is also the same chance that this might also make ample sense. Reading this far in – might be evidence that it does in some way. Only you, whoever reads this, can know that.

AFTERWORD : The Why-Dunnit

This has been all very fascinating, but are we done? Yes, we are, and this very long discourse ends here today, October 6th. This has also been written in a bit of a general and cryptic way so whatever is here can be understood in more than one way because it isn’t exactly about anything in particular. I prefer to keep it that way.

There is often a reason for what happens though not always apparent and these are mine. The project hash been many things but it’s been two in particular. One, an exercise in logic. Two, to find something new and interesting.

As supernatural as it was the problems posed were notoriously down to earth. As I kept reading I found elements in the story that were related to these questions so I grew even more interested in a different way than expected. I thought to myself – “I want to see what type of answer the creator of this story can provide.” I want to read what interpretation the author can provide of these problems. Was it any character in particular? No one in particular but a combination of many of them. To be precise, it was a concept. If I have to say it, I’d say there was two in particular. Did I get an answer? I obtained my answer. I corroborated the one I had, at the same time I also revised past ones. I was satisfied and I was dissatisfied. I was surprised and vacant. Was discontent and overjoyed. In the end, it was trivial but of great importance. That is the type of answer. You could account much of all this writing to those two. Also problem solving is really fun, you know? Let’s not forget about that.

I do actually want to write more about problem solving and theories but after a while one realizes that this problem puzzle solving/mysteries genre is the niche of the niche. There aren’t many of them to start with that can provide that many theories and content. However, they do exist, so it’s always a possibility. Maybe somewhere else at some other time. That is unknown.

That’s also something I’m proud of, to be one of the rare places that wrote about theories and problem solving at large. I’d like someone do the same and try to solve the most complex problems. Whether they get it right or not. To openly show their thoughts and theories. It doesn’t matter. It’s more of a matter of thoroughly thinking, what counts.

I would really like a read a site like that. As of this writing there’s no evidence to the contrary and likely there won’t be one. That’s the only real concern here.

After the span of many years which in actually are longer than this that there’s been plenty of changes. I’m still a rather serious person and part of the natural coldness has dissipated. There are quite a lot of things that can be best seen and others only viewed from different angles. Everything comes with ups and downs. While something is lost, something else is gained. And while there was also dissatisfaction from the conclusion, there was value in it. In the end that’s what is important.

And if I had to pick a musical piece to encapsulate everything it’d be Sirabe. That sounds about right. Something important happened and something clicked back then too. In your case, you might know what that is.  Normally, I wouldn’t write any of this or this much, but I think that for anyone who has taken the time to read this far, this seems quite pertinent. I’m glad that this all happened.

After writing for a good while I am exhausted. If these pieces are overdue is because I wanted to put together all my thoughts of what I thought about everything relevant. Not only that, but the abstract concepts it evoked which was important. Writing this extensively was something I had to do for my own reasons. In few words, I wanted to see what I actually thought about all of these years. I suppose I never expected anyone in particular to read this far, especially since it has taken this long. If you have made it this far then I am here to express my congratulations and show my intrigue, for I am sure that there was something here of great value and interest that drew you to this place. In reality, I doubt I’ll ever be able to write everything on my mind but this is the closest I’ll get to right now. I could write a couple thousands more words but this about covers my thoughts. These were long years but I enjoyed them including the negative and positive experiences. Those long hours of writing, and the thrill of solving problems again, the conferences, the sound of rain, the sound of the clock, and those theoretical tea parties.

Maybe I’ll come back years from now and re-read these long pieces and remind myself what it was done many years from now. I’l bet it’ll be interesting to read what I wrote. Or if someone else does and let me know what they think. I bet they’ll look puzzled when they do, “What was that all about?” – I might think. “How about that author from back then huh?”, they’ll say.

What will I do..? The bliss of peacefulness and simplicity aren’t so bad.  Spending the days painting, writing, and reading books in the afternoon for a while would be nice. That would be splendid. Maybe I’ll take up painting again, finish a novel, pick up an instrument again, completely fill a sketchbook full with portraits, continue reading the several books of any interesting topics I come across. Reading is very important after all. There is still plenty to learn and I’m sure there are still wonderful problems out there to solve. Not all necessarily in book form, but wouldn’t mind them if they were. Occasionally, sitting down on a comfortable chair on a quite afternoon looking outside a window solving theoretical problems. Enjoying the cool freeze, seeing the falling autumn leaves, while sipping some tea and occasionally having some impromptu arrangements.

One more thing, stay hungry.

– I am sure something interesting will happen again.

The End

And more pieces that don’t make sense unless you’ve read everything up to this point.

Having said my piece I wish to discuss not only official strategies used but personal methods even more than any firmly fixed approaches and answers, lateral and vertical thinking to approach problems. I mention that what is here is commentary on problem solving and in the majority personal and informal approaches more than textbook ones. They are alternative ways to view problems, approach solutions, ways of thinking. Emphasis on that. And not only to address problem-solving related questions they may have, but also that whoever reads this to carry a piece of all these years of theory-making, in the most theoretical sense, with them. With this I begin this piece.

Involving Strategy, Problem Solving, and other Theoretical Game boards

A conflict. A solution. Two or more players. A problem. That is the set up of which we continually discuss as the design comes back to the idea of a problem presented to two or more parties and the prospect of its solving it. Let us discuss the word “problem.” What is a problem and how does it originate? A problem is an impasse, an issue, a difficulty, a sort of dilemma which presents a situation for those involved. A problem that can be straightforwardly solved, a complex problem with no easy solution, a problem by which neither player will be easily satisfied with the others’ solution. Or a problem without apparent solution. The word problem itself embraces the idea of “discrepancy”.

One might be prone to think  the word problem is more overstated than it ought to, but I assure you than it isn’t. Unless we were to exist in a stagnant world conflict would not exist, however, that not being the case, problems arise every passing minute and second somewhere from ordinary disagreements to colossal dilemmas. The conflict between two neighbors, the conflict between co-workers, the conflict between two sport teams, the conflict of survival between the hawk that hunts for food and the rabbit who disagrees with the hawk’s prospect, the clash between empires, among many others. One does not have to look far to find conflict in a myriad of ways. Everyone encounters problems and everyone has to deal with them.

Everyone deals with problems everyday from the most basic ones such as waking up early to go to work or to attend an educational institution to working on difficult projects. See, a person is in constant need to be capable of solving all sorts of problems he or she encounters. Problem solving is a fundamental part of existing. We are inherently masters of every day problem solving due to our ability to reason that allows us to breeze through all types of encounters, however, we don’t think of us that way because how swiftly we handle them like they are second nature to us.

Problems vary yet we all without a doubt go through and undertake all levels of problems which we manage to solve daily with great efficiency. Difficulties and dilemma are in its most fundamental structure, without stating their precise complexity, certainly they are problems.

So before getting into problem solving we talk a bit about the sort of categories there are. We begin with the simplest problems which pose no difficulty. These can be referred to as “mechanical problems” because they are solved without a second thought. Opening a carton of juice is no problem as the process of getting it opened is automatic. So is turning on the faucet, a light bulb, or knowing that to reach a higher location one requires a ladder or any object to stand on. There is no real thinking involved so we don’t think of them as “problems” since they pose no difficulty to us. In one word, they are like reflexes.

Then there are problems “solvable by practice”. Problems that are neither as complex as getting the solution of an intricate predicament nor as plain as mechanical problems. We can think of them as problems which one may find them to be, initially, to some extent challenging. For instance, there several abilities one doesn’t know until he has mastered them such swimming or learning to drive. Psychical labor for example requires certain processes to be followed to be done correctly. When we have already successfully conducted these actions the next time we encounter them they are not as difficult as the first time. Eventually the process, the problem in question, becomes easier to solve each time until a problem stops being one.

“Constant problems” are issues which despite being previously solved prove to be challenging no matter how many times they are solved. Think of them as problems that have changeable or too many variables to consider. A type of problem which goes beyond one’s own capabilities and grasps, one that isn’t easily solved. Not necessarily for lack of skill but indeed a problem that in spite of oneself is inherently challenging no matter what. To provide examples, from real life occurrences to nature to even a person who one always have difficulty with. A problem is constant (note. not unsolvable) because it might be easily solved at one time then it might not be solved as easily or at all the next time – reason being variables that change each time.

“Inconsistent problems” are problems that have no easy solutions. Problems that emphatically go beyond a person’s control. Problems which the solution may not be a good one for everyone, creating complex dilemmas. An insoluble problem with an unreachable solution even. A problem whose solution no one agrees on. We call them inconsistent because the solution is not absolute or evident from the start or at any phase. The idea that the solution is never explicit and the disagreement in which it ought to be approached provides the reason why a problem is inconsistent.

These are the most frequent types of problems I established by myself regarding standard predicaments arranged by difficulty. Are they enough? Not nearly but they are sufficient enough to cover a part of the basics of the concept of “problems” which we address. Note they are vital. They are not rigidly connected to problem and solutions field which concerns solutions and results but one focused on the process and requirements required to solve a problem. With first list and with this piece my intent is to expand how one perceives problems and similarly to illustrate how often one encounters them in all forms and levels. As you can guess, this whole piece is dedicated to problem solving.

* Exercises in Observation

Imagine then the following scenarios which none of them are pure problems but instead observations. Say the first thought that comes to mind as you go over them.

– You see a dented car parked on the street.

Another car was not necessarily responsible. Isn’t it possible that an angry neighbor hit it with a blunt object? Isn’t it possible something else other than another car caused it?

– Someone opens the fridge, takes out an orange juice carton, drinks only a bit and returns it to its original position after making a displeasure expression. What is the reason?

There is still juice left. It hasn’t gone bad either nor is the problem that she dislikes oranges. Isn’t it possible she has just brushed her teeth a minute before hence the reaction?

– You see a person walking down the street with a visible bad haircut.

That he went to a bad barber, that a family member wishing to become one needed someone to practice? Why not imagine he lost a bet the other day?

None of them are conventional answers but they are quite possible for those scenarios as it is possible to be answers to solutions one hasn’t come up with. There could a scenario where any of these results actually happens.

Sometimes the obvious answer is indeed the obvious answer such in the case of a person taking out a book and putting on glasses means he is going to read. Or a person taking a pen out means he is going to write or draw with it. And asking the time is exactly, asking what time it is in actuality. On the other hand, we also must be aware that not all problems have the same solutions, hence not all common answers fit all the possible questions.

Indeed it surprises us. When the answer is different than what one imagines. One is naturally surprised, amazed, even sometimes shocked because the result is unexpected. Because we know a premise doesn’t necessarily mean the result will be the same as the one we imagined based on what was assumed. We assumed what the premise was. We assume the end result based on that. This is not always the case.

Those are natural “counters” encountered in everyday life where the answer varies. Occurrences and problems of other possible solutions than those expected and assumed. Problems where it is possible to theorize multiple possible solutions from a sole problem. In other words, what the mind does habitually and crafts as it encounters indefinite occurrences which we refer to them as problems. In one word – a theory.

Concerning Reasons why to Solve to Problems

By now your interest grows as we approach deeper to the field of problems and its applications. You are ecstatic, bored, or even lethargic. If you feel as if your interest grows then you are like me then you find problem solving and its implications to be mysterious formulas. If not, then you, who are not inherently interested in it, solemnly ask – “why”?

Perhaps based on the examples above you already have the answer. By having followed this far into this matter I think you dear reader are most interested in such speculative matters that have been so extensively written about before and currently. I strongly believe there is a degree of interest in the field or in its implications that piques your interest, other than my meager colloquial writing on other matters.

After that I say, “if you are reading this it means for some reason or another you find such long tedious discourses entertaining”, which I wish them to be considered thought-provoking nonetheless. With that I confess that that is probably something I thought I’d say sooner or later as it is a line that I considered in more than one occasion.

I’d like to think the theorist in you is interested more than simply a good story and wishes to read these type of discourses and is deeply passionate to read the train of process of another theorist similar to yourself. There is something fascinating about problem solving. Thinking of the variables to consider, thinking of multiple solutions, thinking of the prospect of solving that which was believed to be “challenging”. The concentration needed, the solution as it is found, the swirling in the stomach and the stimulation to brain as an entire self tries to reach solutions.

– That is probably what many would think I would say. And they might be close to it.
The emotions and the ritual from solving problems are best understood for those who fancy those theoretical problems and those who search for solutions rather than expecting to be given answers. For they rather look for the solution themselves because /it is better that way/. That is who the reader is dealing with.

Let’s lightly address common scenarios where thinking gets complicated, where possible mistakes happen and what to keep in mind.

Common Scenarios and Whether Isolated Events are Related

Solution
\ /
[A] or [B]

It is rarely that a problem is so straightforward as to have one or three main problems. It is more common and interesting for the problem to have multiple parts. The more complex the problem, the more parts it has after all. This would be what a yes or no, an A or B problem would look like if the possible answer would be one or the other.

Solution
/|\

Problem A ,Problem B, Problem C
\ | /
Event [X]

A common scenario is one where multiple events happen and the problem solver wonders if the events are related in actuality. It’s the standard dilemma of whether a) they are or b) aren’t. The question is simple enough but the solution isn’t always. Suppose multiple events happen. Let’s suppose that an important item was stolen from a study room. We’ll refer to this event as “Event [X]”. We don’t know the reasons behind it, we don’t know who did it, and we only know that the item was removed from where it previously was. Additionally three other important events happen very close to it which we’ll refer to as problems A B and C. How does Event [X] fit into these variables?

The problem is that one does not know how related *this* Event [x] is to the other problems. If the stolen item has to do with Problem A then the problem solver is all set in case that’s the correct path. On the other hand, if we attribute the Event [X] to any of the other two Problems (B and C) we’d be off base. It’s as if we are adding to a number we shouldn’t instead of the correct one. To follow that analogy, applying the amount (though correct) to the wrong number will inevitably give incorrect conclusions as they are not indeed related. Suppose a rather suspicious person is seen leaving the room in question. Said person could be related to the incident or not. Assuming he’s not (in fact it’s related to another event, say B) if we attribute this event to the wrong piece of information it will give us the wrong idea of what happened.

Solution
/ / | \ \
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
\\|//
Event [X], Event [Y], Event [Z], Event [etc]

Of course, this is all to give a better idea of what we mean because actual problems aren’t so straightforward. There isn’t only one event. There are many events and those events have be attributed to the right variables for the rest to make sense. It would look something like what is above but more complex and other variables. It’d look like a large string of letter and events and smaller categories where they are connected.

Equivocations, other Red-herrings, and the Dilemma of Extra Pieces

Mentioned briefly concerning events or clues and we expand on that concept. Naturally, in the same way one can make the correct decisions one can also make incorrect ones. If one wouldn’t then there would never be mistakes and that is simply unimaginable no matter how masterful the problem solver is. If so, one inevitably encounters the recurring possibility of attributing the right clues to the wrong problems. That is always a possibility, after all.

This is very important. Always keep in mind that :

“Not because A happened means that B necessarily occurred”

For instance, a loud sound is made and one finds a closed door that was previously wide opened. It doesn’t necessarily means it was the sound of the door being closed. Not necessarily because something can’t be found within the first minutes means it is gone, as it could be very nearby. And even rare as it seems not because an individual takes out an umbrella means rain is coming that day.

It is this powerful and proven concept grand magicians and illusionists abuse to fool the senses into believing an action or event has occurred while in reality it hasn’t. This “association” one makes when two events take place closely to one another that makes one assume they are related. They are masterful tricks that fool the senses, which in a way they are like red-herrings that turns one’s attention away from what actually transpires.

It is commonly here that one makes “blunders in reasoning” while solving a problem that leads to incorrect conclusions by assuming “because A happened B occurred as result.”

Solution to a Problem
/ / | \ \
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
\\|//
[Extra pieces] , Event [X]

We refer to “extra pieces” as pieces that are not part of the Puzzle.

This is an interesting concept that I’ve noticed – the idea of additional pieces of information and how one deals with them. I’m more used to referring to them as “extra pieces” rather than “red-herrings” as I was initially familiar with this concept rather than the formal term used in mysteries but I found that the same concept applies, reason being they both follow similar principles. A red-herring is a piece meant to distract the reader and momentarily hide the real solution of the problem. To illustrate, imagine a jigsaw puzzle. One only needs a certain amount of pieces to complete a jigsaw puzzle, correct? That is to say, any piece that isn’t part of the puzzle isn’t needed and would only confuse the individual.

In summary, there are pieces that fit right away, others that don’t seem to fit, and lastly those who don’t fit anywhere. If they don’t fit in any space on the board then it is quite possible the pieces do not belong to the puzzle. A problem occurs when the puzzle solver assumes that *this* (or these) extra piece /does/ go somewhere when in actuality, it doesn’t. It’s important to remember that even if a puzzle is made of multiple pieces it does not always mean that all pieces presented /are part/ of the main puzzle.

If the metaphor seems unusual then imagine an scenario where pieces of another puzzle have accidentally meshed with the one we are working on. Naturally, all the pieces we need will fit the main puzzle and all the extra pieces won’t because they don’t belong to the main puzzle.

Similarities between puzzles and mysteries are striking and I’ll have anyone know as both of them are in essence problems to be solved. Though I’ll mention this similarity is on a more metaphorical level concerning multiple scattered pieces, the act of putting the pieces together, and reaching solutions. Why not, also solve the problem.

Indeed, there are differences between puzzles and mysteries aside from the traditional clue searching and all that it entails. In an actual puzzle there are no actual “main events” like in mysteries, for example. There are /only/ pieces and more pieces. If there were something similar to that concept it would be the “images” the puzzle is composed of that give away the “theme” of the piece. A puzzle is the complete image of a figure that initially makes little sense and that it only starts to make sense once the pieces are put together. Once most of the pieces are put together the puzzle goes from nonsensical to logical providing a more concrete view. Once all the pieces are put in place the puzzle is complete. It makes perfect sense. Then I ask, are puzzles and mysteries so different after all?

If there is one thing I wish to stress in this section, and with this example, is to not exclusively look at a problem based on its definition, nature, or genre, as it limits one’s perception, instead to look at the /idea/ behind them. On that point, the intention here is to show that the concept of “problem” and “pieces” (ergo a puzzle) are both closely related to reaching a solution.

If an actual puzzle is a set of scattered pieces that belong to a board and form an image then a mystery contains pieces of information concerning a theoretical problem that only when placed in place makes sense and reveals a solution. A general problem is a sort of dilemma of unknown difficulty that requires a solution, reached by thoroughly analyzing all possibilities.

Tools of Trade and Lateral thinking. Impossibilities and Mystery Showdowns with the Masters And other Supplemental Mental exercises

And if so in the thinking process one requires tools to assists oneself to tackle these intricate and multiple problems. For that one requires a creative mind in every sense of the word. We require an open mind that can think of various alternatives for the same problem. This thinking will help us to remind us that we can continue reasoning even a problem appears difficult or be over. Be mindful that the methods to reach a solution are not one but often many. Not all problems are straightforward to have one single solution, for that we ought to always consider alternatives in our thinking in addition that it tremendously improves our conclusions and thinking.

It is not necessarily that because a certain premise is assumed the outcome is evident as a result, what we presumed it was. Note that there are naturally straightforward occurrences but often we forget that there are also those which do not follow any assumed premise. Here is where the possibility of jumping to conclusions of both ordinary and elaborate occurrences takes place.

So there no footprints in the snow near the corpse. The windows were locked from the inside. There was no way anyone could have entered the room. The victim dies in front of everyone yet the culprit is unknown. According to evidence no suspect could have traveled that distance in so little time. Witnesses are sure no one passed by or entered the building. How could any of these be possible?

Yes, impossible. Inexplicable events which appear impossible are made possible.

* A man is threatened by a rural town’s popular figure called the magician of crime after he makes a fool of him in public. The man holes up inside a tower just in case. It becomes a huge incident in the town and policemen keep watch outside the tower so no one enters it, making it a locked-room. Of course throughout the piece all policemen assure us no one suspicious entered the tower. They were correct.

Of course, the man is found dead up in his room upstairs sitting in a chair as he was reading a book. But before that the victim calls the detective’s friend telling a cryptic message before he dies. When they visit the scene of the crime the police deduces the cause of death is arsenic poisoning. The only remaining soul in the whole tall locked tower is a house cat.

It was afternoon that I picked up “The Night of the Wolf” and proceeded to mechanically solve the mysteries it contained the following days. Rest of the details are left out for the sake of time, however, one can theorize how any of them might have happened without having any names of the suspects or motives. It’s not mandatory to obtain all the pieces to make relevant conjectures. This much is plenty to create a theory. This much is enough present a viable solution.

* If it is a real locked-room then it was impossible for any man to enter or leave the tower so poising the man directly is impossible. Because it was impossible for the culprit to escape due to the police surrounding the tower before and after the crime was committed it reinforces the idea that no man entered the tower. Therefore, no man went inside it (or left it), the victim included. We could focus or ignore the main suspect, the magician of crime, who is the person who had threatened the victim but it doesn’t do anything for us unless we know how he did it. Finally, and most importantly, there is the matter of how the victim died – he died of arsenic poisoning but if it had been arsenic poisoning he would have died immediately unable to call for help. This is a contradiction.

Meaning? It happened very slowly. Meaning he took small doses of it -> meaning he naturally wasn’t aware it was poison -> Meaning he used the phone before he died as he realized his mistake -> meaning it was unintentional. Of course he wouldn’t drink anything suspicious -> meaning naturally the way the poison was poured in was not liquid or was unfamiliar to the victim. Meaning?

Meaning the following conditions: 1) the poison was cleverly disguised in an object the victim would not consider suspicious. 2) The poison was distributed in small doses. 3) And it was not a drink. One final question one asks: why did it work then? Because the culprit knew this was a certain way to kill the victim. What does this tell us? Reason being the culprit knew the victim well so much the culprit didn’t have to personally go inside the tower for murder the victim – as it was possible to accomplish it without setting a foot in the place.

You see, the how and who are connected so by learning one can deduce the other one. It’s much like Sudoku telling you what number you can use for the adjacent blocks. Up to this point, you have 3 suspects, which are actually two. The magician of crime, the doctor who used to be friends with the victim (and the magician), and the detective’s friend. The rest of the characters are culprit-wise immaterial since they are not the culprits. Finally, when you reach the final pages, the mystery reveals its final clues so the puzzle can be put together. By the time the mystery emphasizes the victim’s “cat” and a “book” delivered to the tower, the same book the victim was holding. By this time you only need this information to confirm your main theory rather than provide you with information. You now know how the culprit did it and who did it.

Then the mystery is solved before you flip the page to read the official detective’s solution.

”What Does This Tell Us? “

Nothing exists out of nothing for everything consists of other pieces and attributes. Whatever one can imagine can be broken down into prime elements. This applies for solid and abstract elements for they are made of other materials and ideas. A building is constructed from wood, steel or cement and supported by other materials which in turn these materials are supported by small ones. A story is divided into intro, middle, and its ending. Water is consisted by other elements. A laptop is made of several components that make it work. Without these elements they wouldn’t be it. They wouldn’t be what they are. Like one’s personality and peculiarities are part of oneself, when all these pieces are put together they become you.

For reference one can hypothesize with moderate high success the “state of [X]”, the matter or subject in question, depending on its present components.

*At the moment of shaking hands both individuals facing each other will extend their respective right hands unless there is a reason why they can’t. Depending on the amount of books one imagines an individual has an interest in that field. Unopened letters that haven’t been collected hints there hasn’t been anyone in the past days or weeks. Pet food indicates someone in the apartment own a pet.

No magic, no tricks, only accurate reactions and sound deductions based on what one sees. This is what it is, and what it has been all about – classic common sense.

We speculate what type of person lives in an apartment by paying attention to surroundings; the style of the apartment whether modern or classic may reveal the person’s taste and age; the number of plates, glasses, and chairs around the table may indicate the number of inhabitants; clipped coupons mean the person is wise with money. Whether the person has an artistic nature or not can be deduced from the paintings and decorations kept around the place. The gender may be reasoned from the paint colors around the house as well as the feel of the place and other subtler clues. The number of appliances, furniture, electronics (or lack thereof) and the quality shed light on the person’s finances. Moreover, the number of commodities and luxuries emphasizes his or her financial position. Having good wealth raises the chances the person having traveled abroad. Similarly, but not exclusively, the bathroom’s mirror cabinet would tell you that person’s health condition. Lastly, the contents of a fridge would give clues as to the person’s life style. Do you see where I am going with this?

“That is rather outrageous?”, one retorts.

But is it? Are these conjectures not accurate? Not likely on the mark? They would off if they were based on random guessing but they are based facts, on what’s there, educated guesses. The reason why they are close to reality is because as mentioned before everything is made of parts, made of small fragments that make up what they are. In the same way so is often one’s actions. One lives according to his or her means, preferences, and own style. One buys the brand one likes, one affords the car one can afford, otherwise it’ll show around the place anyway. One buys orange juice because one likes the flavor and vitamins. One’s wardrobe indicates the person one is showing the world. Fundamentally, what one does, doesn’t, has, and don’t have, are parts of who one is.

It is in this point that I wish to highlight that the main key to deduction. It is here that one emphatically remind us that /there are details all around us./ Details that one can observe, inquire, and thus conclude. While it is to be noted that the numerous factors that make up an element can be vast, vast enough to one can’t t figure them out all, and the more intricate the element is the more challenging it is, the most prominent factors tend to remain reasonably available.

And one can induce tremendously from the simplest details. One can know plenty from details without even meeting this theoretical person in the example presented. It’s all a matter of paying attention. What one calls deduction is directing our attention to the already existing clues. Back to the principle that “nothing comes from nothing”, we, everything, is made of multiple pieces. And so who we are, is presented in everything around and within ourselves. Metaphorically, walking books. Then if they are present, we can make use of our power of observation and deduction.

But doesn’t everything come to down to observation when you think about it?

One should neither underestimate one’s accumulated knowledge nor be too complacent with what one has. Because one can do plenty with what one has already learned and because there are always more fields to master. For the informal theorist, is not rare to find they already knew a method or term long before realizing there was already formal equivalent. Realizing that one already carries that knowledge in a different way but hasn’t explored that idea enough. Realizing that what famous bestseller authors tell us is common (yet very important) knowledge and that in nutshell what appeared to be completely new information was information we already knew in some way.

The difference is that seldom such information is viewed in new ways, rarely applied to other scenarios, and most importantly put into practice. This must encourage the thinker as it is a positive sign of a thinking creative and boundless mind – for not necessarily the older, heavier, and wordier a book is indicates quality and value.

One can learn from anything since even in simple occurrences and plain problems there are lessons to be learned. These are simple observations based on what’s there.

I am convinced you, reader, possess information that I don’t for sure. This is not an assumption but a certainty. Based on experiences, teachings, skills, background, and knowledge we all amass great number of information all our lives. That’s what our minds do. We receive and transmit information consciously and unconsciously 24/7, 365 days of the year. We are practically walking libraries of information. We start out with only a few books, quickly it becomes a stand then a whole section, soon we have to organize our books by alphabet letters. The next thing we know we end up with our personal libraries that embodies one’s accumulated knowledge consequently being part of who the individual is.

So you ought to go back to what you already know and see how that you can apply that knowledge to a problem. There you’ll find that there is certainly curious information in your archives that can help you tackle any new complex problem.

This informal or formal act of deduction that a certain genre has claimed as if it were its own? In mysteries the readers are supposed to carefully read the story and pick up clues while they read until based on all the clue presented and /found/ (because one doesn’t necessarily catch them all) then presents the best theory to the other player (who is no one else than the author) – who the reader has imagined the culprit is.

In many occasions it pays off, while in other one misses some subtle clues regarding the culprit. Still one learns plenty. In my opinion, mysteries are a great game of observation, imagination, deduction and wits. These concepts catch my interest.

Having written this much about deduction and problem solving, a respect and fascination for the detective figure is inevitable. I must admit that I find the idea that “the detective must not miss any clues”, as if the idea he embodies is the culmination of observational skills, fascinating. But the detective is fascinating. Not as flesh but as a figure. Here is an individual who will surely find and know the importance (sooner or later) of the necessary clues and without fail solve a problem.

And so this ritual also has two players playing the same game looking for the same end result. On the other side of the board there is the audience who are told the clues and who compete with the detective to solve the same theoretical problem. It’s a profound battle of wits like no other, against time, and also oneself. Page by page hard intellectual action, if you will. To solve puzzles, to solve problems. If this is not a fascinating experience for the mind then what is.

At some point, I did proclaim that alibis were not as important. Was the claim outrageous? Do I still believe it? The theorist ought to not be inflexible as granite but his mind ought to be nimble and creative. Instead it ought to mold and adapt to other ideas and concepts. Same as the theorist ought to also hold a neutral mind that questions ideas rather than denies what the problem solver comes across. And so I speak for myself, concerning alibis, when I mention that in the past I proclaimed that alibis were not as imperative. But this is because they are not final.

I’ll say that I prefer my personal problem solving methods when it comes to putting pieces together. There are occasions when alibis can be optional factors despite being exceptionally crucial to the investigation. Recall that in spite of it the culprit could still be someone with a strong alibi, I’m certain you’ll agree after being presented with this common scenario. Let’s put it this way. In some cases despite existing strong alibis a group of suspects are still suspects. Similarly, not just because someone lacks an alibi implies culpability. Do you see what I mean?

The more chaotic a game becomes the less relevant alibis become when they can be easily fabricated or when they can’t be properly corroborated by anyone. Here is where my take on it lies. Alibis are a sturdy tool but they alone won’t necessarily provide a culprit’s identify. For that, other clues are required and our thinking to consider all other hints and mechanisms behind it.

* So there no footprints in the snow near the corpse. The windows were locked from the inside. There was no way anyone could have entered the room. The victim dies in front of everyone yet the culprit is unknown.

According to evidence the suspect could not have traveled that distance in so little time. Witnesses are sure no one passed by or entered the building. How could any of these be. Perhaps that can’t be know right away, however, what is real is that something happened and that there are clues everywhere that can be picked up to arrive at a solution. One just have to look for them.

We need end this section with addressing perhaps the most popular field of solution making that is game theory and also a reminder that the theoretical is still theoretical. That even if the field is fascinating and a more formal technical approach to problem solving. The field is not almighty though as one can imagine. Game theory also has its limitations due to the mighty impossibly it tries to accomplish, that is, solve a problem, solve multiple games, and solve a game with multiple players.

Consider then knowing five out of a player’s moves but being short two. These last ones could be moves you /hadn’t considered/. These two could also be moves you /didn’t know they existed in the first place/. Yet you assumed there were only five moves while in reality there were two more. This is not uncommon, on the contrary, it is standard.

Same as one could only know what one is aware of, all of the other moves one doesn’t consider them. Therefore, the reasoning is never flawless. That is right. There is no way a system or a player could know – all – the moves the other players can make under normal circumstances unless the game in question and the players in question are so straightforward. These hardly being the case in real situations, the games are impossibly complex.

And so, one as ever, rational to a fault, creates a game and a system that takes only the most rational course of action as its foundation. So we base our moves on logical and strictly mathematical approach to obtain the closest theoretical answer to a real problem. So we create a field that attempts to solve actual problems “based on theory.”

Where it errs is when it assumes all players behave rationally, which one realizes that is not always the case. It limits the players’ moves to only a few. It assumes all players will make their best moves at all times. It tries its best to calculate a result based on what it assumes only to exist. Don’t think that Game theory is oblivious to this flaw. The field is perfectly aware of it but it also realizes that in order to theorize they must reduce the number of variables, inconsistencies and instead create an organized equation, turned an originally unworkable problem into a solvable problem, which they can realistically solve.

In conclusion, even then we are still only theorizing. Reality is not as simplified as that. Reality is much more complicated than a conventional theorem of equations playing fair by mathematical rules. Being realistic about it reality is full of constant problems and less gracious then ones presented in theory then why not think of ways of solving them while one is at it. Be actual ones or even theoretical in nature, one of them may eventually lead to more solutions.

One problem at a time.

]]> 13685 keikakudoori https://keikakudoori.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/six-years-of-theater-going-and-theoretical-game-boards-concerning-classic-mysteries-and-game-boards-2nd-bottle/ Sun, 05 Oct 2014 04:04:14 +0000 http://keikakudoori.wordpress.com/?p=13682 Continue reading →]]>

more pieces that don’t make sense unless you’ve read everything up to this point.

Yes, there is matter of mysteries. What are they anyway? Who are these figures call ed detectives? What are these locked-rooms? These tricks. All of these. Though I would leave it to someone who has read dozens of them to address these topics better, I’m the only one here. As mentioned, in the beginning the long procedures aside from the solving didn’t appeal to me. Looking at things with an actual magnifying glass and wearing long coats and a pipe as advertised by the media, “this image” wasn’t my thing. It needed something else to get my attention. If not I needed to change them accordingly to what I would find interesting.

Why Solving Mysteries is Solving Problems

To deal with them as problems, logical problems to be tackled, cracked, and ultimately solved. I mention that the change from the casual problem solving wasn’t that different from mysteries. It is a problem with an answer after all. If it is a problem than it can be solved then it will be solved. I knew that before.

The thing with stressing the idea of “mystery” is that it has to be done in a certain way, follow a “proper procedure”, and such. Here, to be entirely straightforward, I did not know what proper procedure was other than whatever it might be considered common knowledge. I did not know about what secret classic techniques. All I knew was what I would personally do to solve a problem, whatever it may be by addressing the issue, possibilities, and ultimately solutions. I never believed that by reading these certain books one would immediately would become a master detective. Not that I had any formal intention of doing so. Of course, reading plenty of mysteries would facilitate this procedure. It’s the same as with any other topics. Naturally the more one reads about a certain topic the more the person is able to openly discuss it and learn from it as he picks up on details with less effort.

And so one notices that that person might have that motive, that alibi is not that strong, the time-frame isn’t correct, that trick was probably done with x-x-x-x method. “I missed that hint but in the next one I won’t” and they probably won’t, but any writer would make his or her mysteries more complicated and with a different solution the next time. It’s almost like math book problems. The difficulty varies, they can be solved, and the answer is in the last pages of the book but – “you only go that far when you haven’t found the answer yourself”.

To “The Detective” and the Idea of It

The story is strange, I mentioned previously. What I meant was that it is a story that asks the opposite of what it shows. After reading several golden age mysteries, these “detective stories”, I noticed how the setting was completely different from what Umineko, at its most positive, tried to portray. To the point that I intensely wondered what idea of “mystery” the author had in mind when he wrote it. It was surely not the same as the one I read. The mystery setting was there but the sort of compassion and emotion of it was nowhere to be seen. The one I read was intellectual but not a remotely joyous. It was playful, cynical, sneering, and a bit morbid.

– “That doesn’t sound like a good thing, does it?”

Not if they’re considered as “problems” to be solved. These mysteries are based solely on the detective acting his role, the characters are, in No Naku Koro Ni terms, game pieces of the game where other than the police officers, doctors, and characters close to the detective won’t appear again in the next story. The detective simply moves around and meets new people hardly mentioning other characters save past cases to use as reference for the current problem. That was the general pattern.

What is cynical about these classic mysteries is the world they are set in. I don’t mean it in a negative way as the term would imply, rather the intention behind them. I mean that one ought to not expect such mysteries to be moving tales in any way. Thrilling and engrossing, but not emotional. Nonetheless, I believe we’re forgetting about the most crucial part – most of these mysteries revolve around death and deception. There is little room to be happy about anything from the beginning. The detective and the police do their work, or whoever is in charge of solving the problem, does his or her thing. That is the story. That is “the world” they are set in.

The detectives of these stories are highly intelligent, perceptive, competent, detached, cynical, but with a strange sense of being constantly delighted when they shouldn’t. Perhaps they shouldn’t however that is still the case. They care about and often solely for the crimes they solve. The moments they act sociable is because of the case. They don’t needlessly provoke the suspects either. There is no need to do so in the first place anyhow. I didn’t find any of them to be profoundly touched or angered by the culprit’s doing either. That is beside the detective’s point. It’s as if claiming that none of the culprit’s actions in a way would affect the detective’s role. In actually they don’t.

The detectives are like situated in a “different plane”, perhaps this is where Umineko rings true the most in its portrayal. They are never gloomy; at best they are momentarily upset when they are distressed because they can’t put their finger on a detail. When they express grief for such tragedies they are overly-dramatic or their actions are passed as sarcastic remarks so any concerns don’t appear that real. Yet the detectives is ever so blissful and only gets overly upset over things normal people would think of as trivial.

“Don’t think you think such thing is strange? We’re talking about gruesome details, aren’t we?”

What are these figures, anyway? Maybe seeing the same scenes made them that way. Maybe they were always like that. Their curious attitude is never addressed as if they didn’t exist outside of these enigmatic solving creatures they embody. They are always quirky, difficult characters to the core. You’ll have trouble finding a detective in these stories that gets truthfully angry with a culprit because that is not his role. The sole role is to solve crimes.

The contrast between classic mysteries, this logical world, and Umineko’s world intensified ever more the more Umineko tried to illustrate emotion in a genre where originally wasn’t much to start with. Truthfully speaking, I doubt many would get along with these characters in reality. I doubt you reader would either.. Yet here we are talking about “the heart” and strong emotions based on a play that originally had little.

A Reminder that All Boards Need Pieces

In which case, a talk about the main actors is in order. One refers to the main characters of the play. They are all invaluable regardless of their rank for the story would not make sense without all of them in place. They are all necessary for the game execution. In the same way that an official game of chess cannot start without all the pieces set in place. In the same way that even in an informal one the game can drastically be changed by even a missing pawn or one of the knight pieces missing. A game needs to be started with a full set of pieces. It wouldn’t be a story without characters. Umineko is no different. It needs characters, it has characters. Many of them, in fact.

One would describe the characters as “alive”, I’d say. The characters felt alive, which is something I can’t say for all the stories I’ve read where it is difficult to think of them as more than fictional creations from the authors as a way for the story to progress. At first the idea of reading pages and pages about their actions and lives may appear dull but that is not the case for most cases. The human side is troubled by their situations, the magic side are conflicted by their omnipotence which render them miserable at the same time. All characters are powerless in their own way, trying to reach a conclusion fitting to them while others simply act the part because they are bounded by their roles.

It is the same for the magic side. As the Witch’s position is to prove she exists. They all exist in a world where no human exist and aren’t normally seen by humans. One could say they don’t exist to anyone else other than the person they meet. The furniture is the same, they exist in an alternate world regardless of what they are in reality. The witches’ dilemma is that they are part of a game whether or not they are actually playing. They can’t escape it, even if they wanted to. Even if they did they would come back to it. They’re the masters who also have to play. Once again, it is not terror Umineko delivers, it is poignant play of tragedies.

The Distrustfulness Dilemma and Uncertainties

As individuals with their very own history, bias, and preferences everyone leads different lives therefore everyone is different, no one is the same. Because one doesn’t everyone’s past one only knows what sort of person they are “now”. Likewise, one only knows who anyone is based on our interpretation of them from the moment two individuals meet until the present time.

Can anyone really say they know anybody? You know yourself because you are you. Nevertheless, you don’t know who anyone is. You know your best friend but that is because you have spent a reasonable amount of time with him or her, however you don’t know how that person life has been in the past. We know less the people we only encounter periodically. You only truly know yourself out of everyone. And many only know who they are until years later. We create the “idea” we have of others based on thoughts and judgments because that is how we function. Whether they are truthful or not is another matter.

“But isn’t it rather excessive?” One immediately retorts? It is, isn’t it? Such is the frequent case in the news one hears testimonies from the neighbors and acquaints of the culprit saying, how that person didn’t seem the type as they express their astonishment at the recent news. Not everything is as it seems. The expected result is not always what one expects. There is a chance that an event with low probability to occur and what didn’t expect, what didn’t seem to be, occurs.

Distrustfulness and uncertainties are elements that will always be present as they are concepts rooted to existing. If an individual doesn’t trust others than he’ll find them suspicious. If the individuals are not honest then he’ll do so as well. If the situation presents itself where it is possible to be suspicious of others then distrustfulness will present itself, as if it was dormant, whether the situation is true or “fiction.”

When an individual feels he or she is in danger they do everything they can to live on. There are limits, of course, of what they can and what they should do. However, many situations may escalate into tragedies without anyone wishing for it. Accidents occur. Tragedies occur. Sometimes multiple times. Sometimes over and over. Like in a time-loop one might say. Who should they trust or distrust is the question in such stories, wouldn’t one say? But it’s natural that anyone ought to be suspicious and scared. A dangerous homicidal criminal is on the loose and worse yet near them and because they don’t know “who” that person is they can’t feel safe. No, they can’t feel safe until that person they distrust is far away from them. So they separate them from the group, so they accuse them until the culprit is caught. They feel bad for doing yet they still do it regardless.

Therefore There Must be a culprit

So there must be someone responsible, such is the rule of cause and effect.

So this is the universal dilemma in all stories and whenever such uncertainties arise. Not everyone can help themselves. It is their right to be suspicious and be scared because their lives are in danger so they hurt each other so they distrust each other, so they play into the culprit’s hand. Transform that principle into a play of group of strangers or individuals who distrust each other and you have a tale of difficulties. Then There Were None is perfect example of it, Umineko and Higurashi are prime example of mass distrustfulness and doubt because of the elements in it. Despite being friends and family they distrusted each other because they never really trusted each other in the first place such as in Umineko’s case. Despite being friends they stopped trusting in each other like in Higurashi’s case. Contemplate the concept of uncertainty and distrustfulness, skepticism at its final stage due to – open problems – without solutions.

The skepticism, the recurring doubts. One comes to the inevitable conclusion that there ought to be a culprit, someone responsible, for everything that happens. That is surely the expected result one always reaches. When a light bulb is lit then someone must have pressed the switch. When something stops functioning then it was either not made properly, stopped working, or someone broke it. When an accident happens someone is at fault. If someone is responsible for an event that occurred then one needs to know who is responsible. That is why it felt so unsatisfactory when one wasn’t revealed. It made little sense from a logical standpoint.

Similar but Quite the Opposite : Concerning Mysteries, Horror, and Why They Cry

Perhaps the most gripping non-action section of Umineko is the terror. Umineko is not, as it is not its intent, but Umineko *can* be terrifying. The contrast between normal family moments and brutal scenes are properly mystically shocking to witness.

For those who experienced Higurashi first, Umineko was supposed to be as gory as Higurashi if not more. But both works turned out to be different yet also somewhat similar. Back in the day Higurashi’s world felt mad to me. It still does, actually. The way the world is wrapped, where anything happens, and it makes little sense. It is quite “raw”. Despite obvious differences between the adaptation and the original material; however, some rules still applied. Umineko is different. It tries to “make sense” of the world whereas in the former the players themselves were in most part in the dark. There is fair play between the two main players, which was near non-existent in Higurashi, at least, compared to Umineko.

In Higurashi we see a tragedy but don’t understand it. We can also do nothing about it other than to stare at it in confusion. There is no one trying to solve the mystery in the beginning. Even those who do try are killed sooner or later. Worse yet, we cannot trust their findings because of POV and the syndrome. They are all simply too close to the mystery, namely they are technically pieces inside the game board, unable to see it from a further, broader perspective that only an “outside player” can.

I believe that the true terror in Umineko comes from a deeper psychological level rather than physical one. While in Higurashi the mutilations, bizarre deaths, and insanity were the symbols of horror, in Umineko we skip to the events after the grotesque deaths launching us to the world of the pitch black unknown. What exactly happened and for what reason? Who to trust and who one shouldn’t?

You know what is really terrifying? The unexpected. The unknown. Volatile behavior. A sudden reaction that has no reason behind it whatsoever. It’s like walking down the street and a derailed train comes at you out of nowhere. It’s the idea of a stranger stabbing someone out of nowhere. It does not have to make sense because it doesn’t. It just happens. Higurashi in that respect is similar. Higurashi in a way (as the syndrome) is volatile. We witness how the culprit is slowly driven insane and the “before” so the murderer for that chapter is often clear. The reaction is still horror but it is more tangible.

Alternatively, Umineko and its theoretical culprit(s) is a different beast. It is unclear and elusive. It never directly reveals the culprit’s identity. It hides behind magic, illusions, logic, and what the reader wants to see, hear and read. It does the opposite Higurashi did, by trying to clear the suspects from guilt with counter arguments, appealing to emotions at times. Instead of a human culprit or curse one is presented the idea of a “witch”. The one pulling the string is a figure referred to as a witch who controls the gameboard, that is, the metaphorical world, a play before and after death as it repeats and the plethora of “what ifs”.

Aren’t tragedies commonly referred to as recurring incidents sometimes? A certain tragedy is a standalone experience for an individual but it is also the same for others. They happen once then repeat again as long as there is the possibility of it. If so, one deals with a “same tragedy” that “repeats” itself over a long period of time. Rokkenjima is a tragedy that can be repeated – in theory – endlessly. The horror in Umineko is rooted in the idea behind the “game”. It is supposed to be a fair play battle of wits between two – by the rules – “equal players” so eventually one tends to amuse there is a level of “civility”.

It’s a massive contrast to Higurashi where the main characters were game pieces unable to realize they were game pieces and not the main players no matter how important they were to the game board. However, Umineko soon and often drops the pretense of civility in a witch game several times. Such as when Battler loses and is brutally humiliated by the end of Turn of the Golden Witch, no matter how casual the relationship between the two seemed to appear. The spectacle is shocking the first time one reads it. By far the best two examples are End and Dawn of the Golden Witch when the brutality returns to the game, provided by the two voyagers who were in cahoots all along to see how miserably Beatrice could be disgraced in the worst possible manner because they wanted to take over that gameboard.

For me Dawn marked the true horror in Umineko because it was the highest mixture of insanity and cruelty that could be written in the series. The closed-room scene where the novice Game Master is imprisoned combines both the epitome of a locked room concept from the human mystery genre and somehow Umineko makes its own perverse version of it elevating to the witch plane. The room becomes an actual prison. The windows are locked and cannot be opened, just like in a locked-room. The lock is a chain imprisoning the person to a death that is “to be alive only in concept”, to be dead inside. The room is a tomb. The scene is horror.

The next thing one knows and realizes (if not remembers) is that witches are never to be taken lightly and death or something even worse is not a vague threat. One can only be stunned by the scene the first time one reads it. I think the “idea of fear” created in Umineko comes heavily from this. The Player (in theory) who is safe as long as he doesn’t lose unlike the game pieces that can be brutally abused endlessly in the merciless mysteries the Game Master creates. But the reality is that the player can admit defeat, lose, be tricked, can fall into a maddening logic error then.. then oblivion or a gruesome death only awaits whoever loses.

The story may seem civil at first sight but it is only because it is a “different type of horror” which is exactly why such scenes have more impact. It has its own way to present and provides the doses of horror at the drop of a hat. If one is to be metaphorical then horror-wise Umineko is a well dressed refined killer who acts well behaved to keep perfect appearances, Higurashi is like an openly dangerous one who cares not for appearances. Deep down, the both of them are not so different.

As one might imagine, the reason I mention horror is because horror is an unmistakably prominent element in 07th Expansion works which also handles remarkably psychological elements but the core and message of both stories is not it. Both search and tread a deeper philosophical path through misfortune and existing – struggling against fate and struggling to understand and be what they cannot or die miserably in the process. Such are these fragments.

Based on assumptions and expectations one expects Umineko to be like Higurashi. If so, you expect horror in some vivid graphic way. But it’s not terror it delivers, it is a poignant drama. A sort of cyclic tragedy that is referred to as existing. But this is all rather bizarre. It is quite strange, isn’t it? Cruel, cackling, giggling witches and demons coming out of every place imaginable and the reader is expected to deal with the situation like they don’t exist. To deny what is there. It asks for understanding and gentleness while it shows lack of understanding and malice. But they do exist in their stories. And there is a whole game where fates are decided. That is the game. Supernatural forces meddling, deciding people’s fates like it is a game of sorts. If this sounds contradictory is because the story has always been a huge contradiction enough to cause cognitive dissonance.

While a great deal no naku koro ni related, and as intriguing as they are, I don’t particularly want it to be seen as only that, but a series of commentaries. What one takes away from stories. The key word is general. I find that to be more meaningful than focusing on a single story. It is also mentioned that everything written is extensively long and is best understood for anyone is familiar or who has read these stories and the commentary here over the years otherwise they’ll make little sense. For those who don’t, these entries are not addressed to you, for those who do carry on. 

Postscript

By now I’d like to think that after years of writing theories and for this general game board the reader is more than familiar with this author. In actuality, at heart, even theoretically, without being directly explained, understands what this has been and is about. My wish to write theories for these years has met several problems as well as positive surprises. From the start to the end this was a tremendous long journey never lacking information to consider and with plenty of opportunities to expand the already vast world of hypothesizing.

Having reached the final end of it it’s best to document all the journey of a theorist through these years into four extensive pieces. Though the contents of what is written here are never expected to be agreeable (like the very concept of theory is) I wish you find these final pieces most delectable.

If we are to start from point zero then it must be mentioned that my history started years ago when I became a big follower of the Higurashi series in 2006 finding grippingly mindboggling, however due to a lack of a full translation I didn’t read the original novel. I’ll also mention that I was barely aware of its VN and visual novels in general back then. 2006 was a great year for many, especially for me as the No Naku Koro Ni series just started. As one can imagine, Umineko came years later bringing a new game. Quite different from Higurashi but at the same time one could tell it was written by the same powerful imaginative mind. But we will leave Higurashi for later.

For me it wasn’t always interesting. Like many I’ll say that it wasn’t. Unlike Higurashi which pulled me in immediately, The story took it slow, putting things in perspective, setting the stage, if you will. I was expecting something different the first time I read it, something like Higurashi. From EP1 one couldn’t possibly know what was waiting for the readers. It was different. Not necessarily something negative – different. The final scenes of EP1 only shed a bit of light of what was to come as cackles filled the stage. I confess that my interest for the project wasn’t that piqued and as I was under the impression that there wasn’t a full translation for the later EPs at that time so I stopped and moved on to other projects without knowing I was, without a doubt, to come back to Rokkenjima. To that western mansion, to those long corridors, and to those locked-rooms.

If one is to be terribly honest then it is worth mentioning that it was when the adaptation appeared that I was reminded of the series. Surely, I was interested (how couldn’t I?) and had already read the first EP but there was something missing. While watching the adaptation I found inconsistencies and found it unnecessarily hard to understand. As a result I picked up it up again and continued the story. The other EPs were so different from the last time. Engrossing. Inviting. There was potential. Enough to put aside other projects at that time.

I admit that writing is fundamental to me as well as reading is. Without it nothing can be delivered to the audience, without it nothing can be understood no matter how well it is thought out in the author’s head. To me a written piece needs to be thought-provoking and intriguing. Theories were not that difficult to craft as they were created as I followed the story. The problem was in writing in a straightforward, easy to read way. This was more complicated.

Whoever Writes These Entries

Many say who they are in a couple of words such as mentioning their name and formalities such general information. To me this actually says very little about someone and I’ll explain why. A name doesn’t tell me anything I want to know and age only indicates the years they have been living. Not much of the rest of the information one could give to another person is a strong evidence of who they are. These are generalities, after all and because one doesn’t know them for real they all carry little weight. I rather put piece by piece all new information and learn who someone is, such as it was a process. So I often won’t ask any questions of anyone unless necessary or they voluntarily provide them.

I suppose there is some speculation because of the lack of direct information on that matter. So this is partly also my story, told in small bits. After these long discourses the reader will have little questions about that matter. At least, have a more concrete idea. Unlike other writers who like to bear everything for all to see, I never saw much of the point. It is no surprise then that I am not particularly interested in talking about myself. However, this will be an exception and I’ll do something similar – I’ll write at length what I am about instead.

For as Long as I Remember. Long before Gameboards Existed

I have always found learning how anything works, putting pieces in an order and reworking a problem to be highly interesting. That is something ingrained that have never changed. If we are to discuss my problem-solving and construction history I mention my experiences with building blocks as the first one, which is basically the act of constructing something out of random pieces almost creating something out of originally little. Then moved to puzzles and word problems then it became an ever expanding field – as much information and books as there are nowadays. Creating, putting things together giving them form is as natural and customary as anything. As one can imagine, the series called Umineko caught my attention right away as a title vast with theories which years later would bear even more.

If in my initial history fond of constructing forms and ideas, mysteries had not been mentioned as they might be expected is because mysteries, formal term, came later on as I was more interested in problem solving in general without the restrictions of formal procedures and what came with it.

The idea of working on a difficult problem has always fascinated me but it was a broad interest unlike actual mysteries. Mysteries, as in book form, weren’t something I had time to spend on so I didn’t despite being aware of its existence. No, I believe it’s impossible to not have heard of its most famous icons, thus anyone knows “there’s such a thing as mysteries out there”. This does not mean one becomes instantly interested in the genre.

While on this topic I confess one of the main reasons for staying away from them was due to finding them to be often represented as an outdated play of magnifying glasses, long coats, pipe smoking, and exaggerated villainous assailants – an exaggerated play of sorts. It was years later that following shows on television searching for something to watch I found police shows where crime solving stories and figuring out the culprits’ identity and reason out the method were common (ending up with a full confession every so often) that I started to take some interest. There was also other media with similar themes such as games and the like. Plainly put, mysteries in a simpler and more accessible manner. And so while many may not be familiar with those in written form, many may be already well familiar with the latter.

I found new elements that I didn’t catch before so and so on, to learn the process and consequently found answers and continued like that for years, however, rarely shared any of them. The question is, why now and not before? I’ve been tackling and solving the idea of problems for a good while, but mostly kept the process to myself. The answer is a difficult question to answer. If I had to explain it it would be that there was no reason to in the first place. Like not finding a compelling motive to do so, as a result it wasn’t necessary. Like explaining what it didn’t require to be explained, like a mechanical problem that is solved automatically. It’s difficult to explain. Ultimately in any case it can always be attributed to personal idiosyncrasies, same as unexplained actions that can be attributed to personal preferences.

Years later I would create a place to publicly write things down then a bit later I would get more serious, slowly, slowly but surely. This appeared like a good opportunity to “share”, more openly than in any form it was done before, for the first time with the world. And that marked the beginning of multiple entries on 07th’s Expansion latest mystery. “Hey, this is actually kind of fun, isn’t it?” – that type of response. I thought, “this is probably why people write in the first place, huh?”

To answer the question related to one’s personal writing in general I admit that I wouldn’t compare what this place currently is to what currently was. Before it was like writing drafts that needed serious revision so when you read what you wrote years ago you question why you wrote like that or often find that the approach is off. Now the process is more organized and carries more of a personal style. I like my writing more now. But don’t most writers feel that way when they looked back on their first works? This place is now is more of the final version.

The Beginning of a Series of Investigations

Back when I started I was surprised there weren’t others individually trying to solve Umineko’s mysteries despite its popularity. There are always big circles for every topic but sole individuals with that goal were not many. Be that because it seems impractical or because bigger groups are preferred, individual 07th Expansion readers with that objective in mind seemed a rarity at that time. In truth, they still are. Therefore, this place would officially enter the world of witches, magic, and mysteries as a result.

* I don’t think that 07th fans are rare to find. What was (and still is) is to find individuals who also write in a broader view, going beyond the standard practices, going beyond doing reviews and writing impressions, this I found. To look for something more than “thoughts on the game as a visual novel form” but “thoughts on the story as an evolving medium, a problem to be solved.” This was incredibly rare to find.

Don’t you sometimes want to read something different? I also wanted to read something different so I wrote all of this approaching it in a different way. One that was rare. One that was unique. That is also the reason why there are entries that seem out there every now and then in this place. That’s me trying to write about something different and in a different way.

Because that is what I wanted to find. That is what I wanted to read. That is what I wrote as a result. Fundamentally why this game board called Just as Planned was made in the first place.

Why Theories are Possibilities

I admire individual thinkers because I don’t expect the writer to comply with anything I may verbally or internally request. It is my simple wish to retain my individually. I wrote for myself as a way to give theories a more tangible form then decided to release them to anyone who may read them for them to analyze. In the same manner I wrote not to appeal or cater to anyone in particular. I’ll ask then not to commit the mistake of thinking everyone writes thinking of the audience, for views, or momentarily fame. If this was the case then this place would aim for more general topics rather than remaining niche.

But this in turn in happens to be a good thing for the reader because I also remind the reader that you’d actually be given a severe disservice if theories were crafted with the intent of agreeing rather than with thought behind it. Theories are not meant to please but to show alternative possible truths and solutions out of hundreds.

The process ends here for the theorist. Whether one agrees, denies, or ignores them – is longer up to the theorist, but “for the audience to decide.”

Having said that, I mention that when I theorized extensively part of me did wish that someone out there would also enjoy these long discourses. Perhaps it is because it is my practical nature that would see it as a like a waste if I kept it to myself. Perhaps it is because it is the idea of knowing there are others who enjoyed them as much as I did when I composed them. Perhaps it is a bit of both. I am appreciative of everyone who has read them over the years and had took their time to provide feedback and alternatives for some theories. This made the journey even more enjoyable than I initially imagined it to be.

This now begins the section of handling some of the many different Umineko mysteries through the years. Some were easy to figure, other challenging, others madding to fully decipher. I’m sure you are already well familiar with them.

Recurring Problems, Challenges, and Deductions

“There are problems then there are ‘problems’ and then there are theoretical problems”

We emphatically engage in the latter one. The story describes multiple times many characters who see what they interpret as magic. It happens multiple times that the readers question what they are reading every time. Is it real? Are the characters lying by playing along with a farce? Or is it magic because they believe it because it cannot be anything else? One thing that is known is the world at that moment “changes”. The story branches out into alternate paths and truths but with the same result – the result that is given by the story of the event. Testimonies, hearsay, the unreliable narrator. Problems with unknown results.

For example, some the Ushiromiya valiantly fight the stakes of Purgatory back at the mansion but are defeated one by one on the second floor. The magic sequence involves multiple gunshots, running around, and struggles. In addition to the usual display use of magic, when the human side finds the bodies all they find are two bodies laying on the floor with one fatal shotgun wound and visible signs of being staked.

But the scenario, like many others, poses inconsistencies. Out of this the theorist notes and questions them. This is the process that repeats every time a mystery appears. Where are the other remains of gunshots on the walls? Where are the stains of blood? Where are the signs of struggle all over the mansion that ought to be visible? There are no signs of moved chairs, broken glass, or books on the floor. The scene hardly shows any changes as it was before.

Then what do we figure from this?

There was not such as big struggle as shown. Possibly there were arguments, one from this group got separated, and the others went to briefly look for this one but were killed in the process. The fate of the one who got separated from the group is unknown until much later.

“Is the one who got separated the culprit?” is another recurring common question. The answer is not easy despite apparently being limited to a “yes” or “no” as one would imagine. And if so then is this our culprit for all episodes that follow this same premise? Such reasoning may be valid for one EP then not valid for the next one. For all we know the reasoning is sound where that character was the culprit all along because *at the point* it has enough motive. For another EP the victim’s corpse was merely hidden so the actual culprit could cast suspicion on that character following the premise of – since “A is gone that means A is either dead or the culprit.”

How does one figure the answer to that? It depends on the rest of the story and also what preceded this event. This illusion that propels the reader to believe that whoever else is missing is likely considered dead but more than that, an emphasis that person is the culprit.

Recall how husband with financial problems whose destination is unknown for a while. Recall how family head who is thought to be the culprit in some games because only a few actually know he is long dead. Recall also the quiet servant who also disappears in thin air. Though a different case, the premise of “either culprit or dead” holds as a result.

Recall also how easily we were fooled by this same principle of “as a result”, making these quantum leaps in thinking, so often when the victim came back from the dead, which in actuality meant they never died in the first place. How we learned the hard way that regardless of how thoroughly examined and confirmed by the red, the validity of whether they were dead or alive was an illusion which we chose to believe or refute.

The magic vs. reality sequences.. In my opinion, how the scene plays out was based on what was found in reality compared to what happened in the magic sequence. For instance, the struggle is interpreted as basically that, a “struggle” yet struggle is a broad enough word to mean anything from arguments to getting physical, isn’t it?

Regardless of what in truth happened the result is that they’ve been killed. That is the end result, assuming the “premise” is truthful. What the magic sequences depict is only a fragment of what really happens. Hardly, and often not recommended to be taken literally if the reader is to logically tackle the problem. They were far from literal, however, they did provide powerful insights into what really happened.

Yet, it is not like overnight one immediately realized the implications of all the events or the reasons behind them. No one did. It took weeks, months, for some even years to zero in these elements, to form one’s notion, the interpretations for each section of the mystery. This is what has been all about – this procedure. A hard, constant, and evolving thinking process.

To solve a problem one uses all ideas and techniques known to reach a solution. The thinking process varies from person to person, it is impossible to pinpoint one single formula that everyone used to solve a problem. It was here to everyone was on their own. It was here that everybody’s potential and individuality was put to the test. Would you go with a classic approach or will you approach it in your own way? Which was it? Everyone’s reasoning is different. The train of thought then differs from one another so is the conclusion they reach. In the same way you used yours and I used mine.

Concerning Other Theorists and Why Theories are not Stagnant

Comments months even over years after they were written regarding counters and “new theories”, first surprised me then after a while they were something of a concern because there was something really off about them.

One wouldn’t comment on news from months ago about a topic. The event has passed. New information comes out and what was written was only based on the findings up to that date. In other words, when new information comes out it may confirm or deny what was previous written, but that is only because new information that was not previously available has appeared. As one can see, the two have no connection because both of them appeared “at very different times”.

What one has to understand is that theories are “ideas that evolve” and not stagnant or never changing in any way. They change until a, the, final true theory is reached. By that one means that normally a theory goes through multiple changes depending on the new information found. Think of it as “a break in the case” in investigations to provide an example. You find new clues, new suspects, and new leads. The initial theory is replaced by a new one. That new one is replaced by an even “newer” one so and so on.

It is in the nature of theories in general to be refuted and modified years later from when they were initially crafted by the creators themselves or others. That is process, the process of theories. Hypothesis that repeat themselves as in a time-loop until the problem is solved.

Similarly, the reason why Chess Moves and Assumptions are very much Time-Limited

So we turn our attention to other methods, theoretical moves, if you will, to analyze the problem at hand thus *Chess Moves*. Chess Moves were designed to cover enormous parts of the mystery in the least numbers of possible moves. In here I also introduced the concept of “winning in the least number of moves possible” as implied by the chess analogy. Seeing this was a game versus the writer (other player) it seemed appropriate to set up such system.

Unlike written pieces that mainly discuss the story, Chess Moves differed far from the standard approach. They were designed to cover the mystery – as in conducting investigations – part of the story.

The procedures were conducted with all the information “available up to the moment” each Move was written following this strict rule. This way no additional, not-yet-disclosed, no Japanese release, information was included, no additional editing was made after these entries were posted either. In other words, what was written would only cover and concern the information up to that point – all new thoughts and new theories with new Episodes that appeared later were not part of them.

This was intentional as they were pieces written based on the concept and information at that time purely despite one could without effort spoil oneself with new information. However, that would not be fair in a real game and would destroy the whole point of it. As far as I’m concerned, there is little point in solving problems you already know the answers to, you see. Additionally, updating these entries would create confusion with past and new events being introduced. This I wanted to avoid the most as inconsistencies that confuse reasoning are discouraged.

Not to mention, you can’t modify a move after it has been made. You can only make a new move. So we made our moves.

Concerning Weapon of choice, Theoretical Maps, and Distances Traveled

It is my belief that the crime weapon is one the strongest clues a mystery problem can offer. They don’t only serve to learn the victim’s cause of death but also shed light to the culprit’s thought process and nature. Knowing and finding the crime weapon is indispensable as knowing the exact cause of death. Following this criteria the following was written.

One of the moves thoroughly explored the weapons and objects used for the crimes for instance. It went from kitchen knives to winchesters to stakes, discussing how they were used and under what circumstances they were. Why didn’t the culprit use kitchen knives instead of firearms? How come the culprit was such good shot? To which its answer is that he has training or that all the victims were at close range. How was the culprit able to move the bodies with apparent ease? Speaking of which, were all the bodies left untouched until the moment they were found? To which its answer could be that blankets were used or accomplices helped in these cases. This was all mentioned and discussed before before the story got to that part.

Then there were deliberations regarding the places in Rokkenjima’s island which was found in one of the entries. There it was discussed a curious element for the first time in any of these entries which was the – time traveled. Not the time in-between crimes which refers to a “time-frame” but the necessary time to cover distances between points. Considering how big the mansion is and the size of the island it appeared pertinent to at least mention such method that considered travel distances. Granted, it was a quite “experimental” as one can imagine.

In this my true intention was to attempt to create something of a “map” of the island’s most relevant parts, events, and places where the crimes occur by mentioning these locations. Both reminding the reader the possible movements of everyone in the Rokkenjima and constructing a more palpable image of the island. All of these originated from the lack of an official map of the island which made us base our thinking on rough estimates of where everything was in the story – photographic images all included.

It was then that I mentioned a place, a room, such as the mansion’s VIP room being a perfect place to hide anything imaginable because hardly anyone would come to check it, which in reality it turned out to be the underground VIP room where all the action was. Similarly, places such as the beach and the time it takes to reach the guesthouse from the mansion were addressed. I believed these two to be especially important, specifically culprit-wise.

Although the map never took off completely because of the mystery only provided us with the time sporadically and because of factors such as urgency, speed, and unknown elements for each game. Still do think it was an interesting innovative concept to play with. Because of this I did hope when I wrote it that there might be someone out there who could take these concepts and work them into something better constructed.

Irrational Crimes and Whether or not there were any in the First Place

Frequently I also contemplated the idea of mass hysteria as a reason behind some of the deaths in some EPs. The idea behind it was simple. After the deaths started the survivors become extremely paranoid and often violent as a result. This led to disastrous results. They miscalculated, acted irrational, and did things they wouldn’t normally do. In essence, “they were not themselves”. Becoming then involved in a crime becomes possibility depending on the circumstances.

A premeditated murder is one when the culprit plans in advance the method of how to carry out the crime in addition of avoiding being caught. The culprit knows what he is doing is wrong but continues and wishes to get away with it. Premeditated murder involves thinking of committing a crime from the start therefore making the culprit be fully aware of his or her actions. That person is guilty without a doubt. We usually thought of the culprit to fit this profile because of the nature of the crimes. They certainly seemed utterly planned.

Still, a scenario where involuntary homicide could exist was possible. There’s self-defense and the like which could have explained some of the deaths. This theory was prominent in EP4 when two of the cousins fought to the death both killing each other. Note that normally anyone would defend if he or she was in mortal danger. It wouldn’t be far-fetched if such scenario actually took place in one of the many games. That is the reason why I could not proclaim that, “all the murders are premeditated” and that is the reason why a chess move regarding that topic was written. That is also why in Requiem I had already expected an accident to occur – and an accident occurred. Twilight of the Golden Witch delved deeper into that possibility as we all read.

Theoretical Moves and Other Train of Thoughts

One creates solutions, even with clues that not openly introduced, to explain unanswered questions. The mind questions why no one heard the gunshots. Was it because something like home-made suppressor like a pillow was used? The mind seeks solutions like going through cabinets.. to find one solution that fits the conditions and bypasses the restrictions posed. Was it because it was outside and because of the pouring rain that drowned the noises? Was it because the survivors were too far away to hear it? No? Then was it because whoever heard the noises ignored them as they were accomplices? Because it was the culprit then, the mind concludes. To which there are no solid answers.

What is amazing about the process of problem solving is also the alternative solutions born from the problem themselves.

Such was the case when I opened the possibility of the existence of additional firearms in the mystery like a standard handgun. Looking at it, it seemed more practical and easier to conceal than Winchesters. In a way they make more sense looking at it realistically of course, however, we were not entirely free to imagine as we wished as restrictions did apply to our thinking process. Handguns don’t exist in that 1986 Rokkenjima because they were never introduced or even hinted at as an element, therefore they don’t exist, therefore they are not considered in the mystery because the readers do not know about them. A surprise which might seem redundant but details like these needed to be stated to avoid confusions when thinking outside the box has its limitations.

In a simpler but stronger vein than ever the players’ culpability and innocence, like in any mystery, was challenged not one twice but repeatedly. The Ushiromiya and the servants Chess Moves proved to be tremendously challenging. The guiltier they seemed the more possible it was they could be innocent.. and so one reaches the point where one’s reasoning conjectured that based on the way the crimes were committed required accomplices. And not one but multiples. Like a merry party that welcomes more guests.

How contradictory it was. Like a mystery that doesn’t wish to be revealed. Know that that notion was always present. As a war cannot be won by oneself alone but with a strong large group, no matter how great the chess master is, he needs pieces to execute his plans. May a culprit be in need of accomplices the more audacious and intricate the plan is, after all.

It ceases being a mere idea – becoming something close to fact. Our thinking coming to the inevitable conclusion the servants being involved, one way or another when one deduces some crimes are impossible without the cooperation of one of the servants. This ‘cooperation’ may have been against their way or not or accidental but “involvement” was as difficult to ignore as the blood or red graffiti, for they were always there, masterfully hidden via a trick or blatantly ignored by who found them. And also if there was a dysfunctional family, the Ushiromiya was it, putting to shame to any other before them. The siblings had the clearest motives which were palpably stated by the writing such as financial problems and old grudges. Aren’t their motives almost too obvious, one thinks. Yes, they are. No, they aren’t – another thinks. Two different theorists sharing different hypothesis class repetitively trying to best the other one.

Would that clear suspects from being culprits? The eternal question everyone asked themselves while crafting any “the siblings are the culprits” theory. One analyzes, stops, one admits they have strong motives based on the promise of a better future, based on their history. One admits that given the opportunity some of them would take their chances knowing this could be their last one because, for many it was. This was in few words what the move made was about. That was and still is my opinion.

Concerning the Point of Chess Moves and Other Conclusions

Were these Moves practical or were they not at all? When I crafted them I was starting to get more into the finer details of the mystery so I wanted to give form to these thoughts and certain points which I wished to emphasize because I was sure one would come back to them like the culprit who returns to the scene of the crime because he forgot something. Because theorizing without immediate solutions about the same problems is much like going circles returning to the same point, the same unanswered unsolved problem.

I hope it is a tangible that I did not want to use the same standard methods to approach a problem. I wanted to do something different. Nothing like I did before, or it was done before, so what I did was put together ideas that I had as I read into these pieces, each closer to an actual checkmate. It’s all about innovate approaches, I say. One could always use the classic standard methods to tackle problems but in addition to them I believed that readers trying to solve the problem would also appreciate additional methods they haven’t considered before. I am of the opinion that everyone has their own deductive process and methods after all, so this was mine.

Maybe they had their own ideas but they didn’t see the problem *that* way. Maybe they were thinking something similar but had difficulty putting all these abstract thoughts together to form a more conclusive theory. In case they didn’t, then they had something new to think about, should they hit a wall at some point. It was the same for me every time someone brought and presented their take on one of the mysteries. That is how these moves were created and the reason behind them.

While on this subject I apologize for not mentioning all details originally written in these long moves as one can imagine, I have written too many pieces over the years, both officially and unpublished drafts so it might be difficult to recall all details to perfection. Please do go over them again sometime in the future when you find it suitable to revisit what at some point was theorized from these intricate mysteries.

What I am here to do is to also remind everyone through all this writing is that this was all a long process.

Mostly Importantly Why Theories are a Constant Process

A weather forecast can tell you how the week is going to be but it can’t tell you exactly how the weather is going to be for the next months. That result is also uncertainty. There is a limit. You can only predict the next moves so much before the calculations contains errors eventually becoming not calculation but simple rough guesses.

Each Episode only showed *a* part of the puzzle so at that point only a certain information, and only certain information that could be known, was known. Without the introduction of further clues the rest becomes harder to imagine. That is similar to expecting to know how a story would end before the introduction of the needed pieces are presented. It is not doable.

So we looked forward to more EPs, so we learned more about the story, more about the characters and where the story was *really* going, because when the first Episode appeared who really knew where the story would eventually take us. Even far deep into the story still many didn’t. But the story also changed. Its rhythm, direction, and elements changed. It introduced new ones while it also kept some of the old ones. It appears almost like a different game, so it confuses you, tricks you – challenges you. And properly so. Without a doubt, I am sure the author is perfectly aware that changing the pace and direction can steer the readers away from the answer until the time is right. In general, the magic sequences had a powerful way of doing this if one wasn’t prepared.

This is also a confessions final piece so let us be honest and admit that handling over 50+ hrs of information is a herculean task, isn’t it? I wouldn’t blame anyone for forgetting certain conversations or events for past EPs because there are so many of them. In more than one occasion I confess I mixed up the order of some events myself. And the red. The hardest part of attacking the problems was trying to not go against the red and create a plausible theory while doing so, which became the main feature of most later entries – posing possible ways to bypass the red. The thing is that every single EP requires the reader’s full attention to solve it or even attempt it. As someone trying to solve the mystery, one wouldn’t get far unless one gave it the best effort.

Therefore one takes notes and therefore I did. I took plenty of notes. Notes before posting anything, notes while reading each EP.. notes of notes. That character did or said that. That other character reacted that way, or that character wasn’t present at that time. So it was possible for that character. How come no one mentioned that? That scene seemed really important.

And so on.

Rika and Yuuta’s relationship is boring. Yuuta has always been boring. Rika has become boring. I’d say I find Kumin to be more interesting but that’d be false. The relationship feels stale, dull. The story’s been moving at a snail pace for developments. When there is drama it is anticlimactically solved within the same episode. When they do make progress I don’t care much for it either way – as opposed to the 1st season when they weren’t together and their interactions were more interesting to look at. Will he help out of her chuuni once and for all? Will her parent send Rika away? Where is all of this going?

The 2nd season has had too little challenges. The apartment situation is solved in the first episode, the sister removed any sort of challenges possible, at school they basically do nothing but stay at the club. The new character Satone was supposed to be rival or to create tension between the chuuni couple, but the whole situation is also solved swiftly. I’m more impressed by her laugh than anything.

When the two were still having problems adjusting to living together I was more interested in Dekomori helping Nibutani gain the position of student council. While Rika and Yuuta were on a school trip I was more intrigued by that Mori Summer fake website than that feeble 10-minute quarrel.

The main couple has grown dull. Helping Rika, grow out of chuuni phase is the point of the show, but at the same time there are others with the same condition who are far more interesting. In this I realized that I’ve been watching Chuunibyou for the other ongoing subplots from the very first season.

There’s the tremendous character growth of side characters such as Dekomori who goes from being an obnoxious dumb brat to a more amicable, intelligent, complex, why not, likeable character too, even endearing (feels too weird just typing that) when acting like a normal person.  A minor character who was supposed to be Rika’s sidekick, a yesman in her chuuni anticts, who by now I think, has become more interesting than the protagonist herself. Even Satone becomes more interesting by the episode.

The case when minor, side characters, second-main characters whose stories and interactions are more interesting than the main one themselves.

Nibutani and Dekomori’s antics are more interesting than anything in the show. Has been and still are. Neither of them is openly battling their chuuni but a past. They have a history as teacher and student. They’ve got an ongoing feud from the first season that doesn’t get tired as opposed to Rika’s chuuni antics. They don’t need to live together to create tension. They are constantly at each other’s throat, sometimes at school, sometimes outside, sometimes literally. More importantly, the cause behind most of the chuunibyou in the story, that is, Nibutani’s enlightened past self back when she imagined herself a holy saint and in her wildest chuuni episodes created a whole bible of made up incantations. The chuunibyou core of the story.

Episodes like the fake Mori Summer episode is more what Chuunibyou, in the general sense, is about, at least the way I see it. It is not necessarily about Rika or about Yuuta and much less about puppy love, it is about something the main story seems to have paid little attention to, it’s about past and new selves at different points in life, about accepting oneself and whatever sort of uncomfortable past that comes along with it. While the uncomfortable phases are best forgotten, in the case that one has not really come to terms with it and when the past still lingers – the problem has not really been solved. They say that one cannot really move forward unless one accepts themselves first. The problem comes back because it has not been faced. The realization of the self coming to terms with its distorted versions. And that, that, is the reason why I’m more immensely more interested in the ongoing subplots than the main story.

With that comes too the strange realization that I had while watching the show, that I do like this show.  You win this round KyoAni.