[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 8 Twilight of the golden witch [Archive] - Page 7

jjblue1

2012-03-15, 13:38

The book of one truth does not include anything about Battler's survival, therefore the content is unreliable and NOT the truth.

Likely more than unreliable is incomplete.
Eva could only write what she saw or was told. Even if she wrote it truthfully and objectively in a mere list of facts people might have lied to her, facts could have been misleading and it's unlikely she witnessed everything unless the culprit was in a room with everyone and began shooting or she followed him/her around without doing nothing/managing to do something to stop him/her.

Let's pretend we've Erika's narration of the events of EP 5 in an inpartial manner.
She was told people were dead and has no reason to doubt it.
At the same time Natsuhi's behaviour is extremely suspicious, she has no alibi and, all considered, even when Natsuhi confessed about the phone call she didn't make herself any more reliable from an objective point of view (she couldn't prove she received the phonecalls and she just admitted in her past she committed a murder).

If we get only Erika's perspective, even if she says the truth about what she witnessed we would think Natsuhi is the culprit.

I think the diary being THE TRUTH played on this fact, the diary could be truthful while at the same time not containing all the truth we need to reach the right conclusion.

GreyZone

2012-03-15, 16:23

ahh ok. I misunderstood you. I thought you mean "The Truth" ment everything that happened in Rokkenjima these 2 days. Well good that is cleared up now.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-03-15, 21:46

hmm...when you put it that way, it seems the diary is nothing more than another message bottle/fragment, which is probably the best way to think about it. Or it's a catbox that writes about what's inside another catbox.

I was thinking at first that maybe it might be similar to Ep3, since we have Eva feeling guilty about the events for one reason or another, so my first thought was maybe it would tell us the same things as EP3. But in EP8, we learn more about what EVA was supposed to represent - nothing more than a representation of Eva Culprit Theory. I realized that Eva went through a lot to keep the truth from Ange. Everything that she did. I understand why people would doubt the validity of the things written in the diary, because well, it's Eva's diary. I really do get it, but keeping EVA in mind from EP8, it might be better to assume that what is written in the diary is as accurate as the truth reached by Hachijou. Senza amore...

jjblue1

2012-03-16, 17:24

hmm...when you put it that way, it seems the diary is nothing more than another message bottle/fragment, which is probably the best way to think about it. Or it's a catbox that writes about what's inside another catbox.

No, because the message bottles are made up stories while the diary tells the REAL story... at least as far as Eva knew/witnessed/was told about.
So if in the diary it's written that let's say 'Eva saw George lying on the ground apparently dead' that's truly what Eva witnessed (though it can be up to debate if George was really dead or only looked like that) while whatever the message bottles say might have been entirely made up or match the reality merely due to coincidence.

I was thinking at first that maybe it might be similar to Ep3, since we have Eva feeling guilty about the events for one reason or another, so my first thought was maybe it would tell us the same things as EP3. But in EP8, we learn more about what EVA was supposed to represent - nothing more than a representation of Eva Culprit Theory.

Well, Ep 3 might contain some elements of truth (for example I always had the feeling someone might have tried to shoot Battler) but most of it is likely a forgery based on some true facts (Eva surviving and owning Kinzo's ring) and possibly fragments of Battler/Toya's memories.

I realized that Eva went through a lot to keep the truth from Ange. Everything that she did. I understand why people would doubt the validity of the things written in the diary, because well, it's Eva's diary. I really do get it, but keeping EVA in mind from EP8, it might be better to assume that what is written in the diary is as accurate as the truth reached by Hachijou. Senza amore...

I don't really think it's fair to define a factual, objective retelling of what she saw happening (if that's what is written in Eva's diary) as loveless.
A factual retelling is just facts.
It would be different if she had manipulated her storytelling to make someone look bad or good, sort of like Erika manipulated facts in EP 5 to make Natsuhi look as the culprit but this would mean the diary would offer also an interpretation of the events becoming a subjective truth.

To make things more clear:

1 ) I saw Kyrie shooting in George's direction and George falling, a gaping wound on his chest then moving closer to him and checking his condition.

2 ) I saw Kyrie shooting at George, with the clear intent to murder him for no good reason at all and succeding at hitting him then moving to check if she had killed him with just one bullet or needed to shoot him a second time to finish the job.

3 ) I saw Kirye shooting in George's direction for some reason, likely thinking there was someone dangerous behind him. Sadly, either she missed and hit George instead, or someone else at the same time shoot at George with a gun with a silencer because I saw George falling. Kyrie, pain stricken for what had happened, hurried to check on his conditions, ready to give him some help.

In the first case we've only what Eva witnessed without any comment about Kyrie's possible intentions. In the second and third case we have an interpretation that's trying to pin Kyrie as evil or as a good person even if the facts are the same as in the first example.
I like to think that the diary, for being defined as the truth, has the facts described as in the first example however what Eva witnessed is likely going to lead the reader toward an interpretation like the one in the second example than like the one in the third example.

alarmadadna hadi

2012-03-17, 15:50

No, because the message bottles are made up stories while the diary tells the REAL story... at least as far as Eva knew/witnessed/was told about.
So if in the diary it's written that let's say 'Eva saw George lying on the ground apparently dead' that's truly what Eva witnessed (though it can be up to debate if George was really dead or only looked like that) while whatever the message bottles say might have been entirely made up or match the reality merely due to coincidence.

Unless Eva felt tempted to write a "forgery"-like diary framing someone else so that the the attention directed at her and the controversy would cease, at the cost of marring someone elses memory. It would be arranged to have been "leaked" to a high profile and respected personality (eg ikuko) so that a "revelation" is staged with all proper sensationalism. After all, she was seen as a gold digging liar by the public, a direct confession would not feel as authentic as a leaked secret, and she wont be judged as someone trying to escape blame, but a selfless person taking the blame of others (which might actually be the case).

Only that, in the end, as she neared death, she decided against it. That would also explain why she described it as nonesense or whatever to ange.

Just a thought.

jjblue1

2012-03-17, 16:00

Unless Eva felt tempted to write a "forgery"-like diary framing someone else so that the the attention directed at her and the controversy would cease, at the cost of marring someone elses memory. It would be arranged to have been "leaked" to a high profile and respected personality (eg ikuko) so that a "revelation" is staged with all proper sensationalism. After all, she was seen as a gold digging liar by the public, a direct confession would not feel as authentic as a leaked secret, and she wont be judged as someone trying to escape blame, but a selfless person taking the blame of others (which might actually be the case).

Only that, in the end, as she neared death, she decided against it. That would also explain why she described it as nonesense or whatever to ange.

Just a thought.

This would mean though that the diary doesn't contain the truth but is a forgery written by Eva herself. As Eva's diary and the book of truth are supposed to be the same and said book had been guaranted in red to contain the truth I would find it a pretty bad narrative trick if we were to be said that it was merely another forgery.

GreyZone

2012-03-17, 16:18

Only that, in the end, as she neared death, she decided against it. That would also explain why she described it as nonesense or whatever to ange.

I think the reason why she described it as non-sense is because the content was very subjective.

So in her diary she may have written "Kyrie murdered my beloved Hideyoshi heartlessly!" while in reality she only saw Kyrie with a winchester over Hideyoshi's corpse (or a living Hideoyoshi that is participating in the murder mystery game) and made wrong conclusions because of that...
That would be reason enough for Piece!Eva to view it as non-sense and trying to prevent Ange from reading it, because it would hurt her although it was not even true...

RandomAvatarFan

2012-03-17, 21:24

It's not "just another forgery" because it is what the only survivor of the Rokkenjima incident saw.
I still like thinking it as another message bottle, a Fragment that will deny all others. It's the Fragment of truth. And the contents of the diary will fill in the blanks of what we know and vice versa. It's still a puzzle piece, but the final puzzle piece, even taking into account what jjblue says about what details may be embellished and what details may be left out. There's enough clues with the fragments we do have to reason out what had happened that day anyway, but this would be the answer key that gives the narrative to fill the holes in our deductions, and our current understanding of the events should be able to smooth over the rough parts and the gaps in the book of one truth.
If the contents of the diary existed.

GreyZone

2012-03-18, 04:36

Let's just say that a big part of the diary is red truth. But some things like wrong assumptions are not.

Remon

2012-03-20, 08:14

jjblue1

2012-03-20, 17:38

Ange read the book in EP 8. The entire episode seems to portray her inner conflict. To read or not to read. But she read it in the end after all. And she didn't read about Battler surviving .

But regarding the contents of the diary. I'm pretty sure it does contain the truth.
Ushiromiya Eva's diary, the Book of the Single Truth, has written within it the truth of Rokkenjima during October 4th and 5th, 1986.
During 4th and 5th is the key here.

EDIT HERP DERP
I got my facts wrong here. In the Epilogue Ange didn't read the diary after all. What the hell?
Then I guess EP 8 just symbolizes her desire to read it when Ikuko was going to make the contents of the diary public.

Actually we don't know about it.
Ange might have read the diary before reaching the fence.

Note that in the meta world she read the diary than jumps off a balcony and the scene switches to her jumping off a fence.

So she could have read it before going to the fence and having read the diary might be the exact reason why she went to the fence and considered jumping down.
Then, in the magic epilogue she found her own way to deal with what she read and went on living.
Someone else found the diary she left in the hospital and later the diary ended up in Hachijo Toya's hands. We know what happened afterward.

NasakenaiMono

2012-03-25, 20:15

Greetings fellow anime, manga and game fans :). I am NasakenaiMono. I am doing a research on Umineko no Naku Koro ni for a class in the University and I was wondering whether someone here who has played the games or seen the anime, would be willing to take a questionnaire I made for this particular class.

Since this course is part of my study of Japanese in University, the questionnaire is in Japanese. Although it is in Japanese everyone is allowed to take part. You can use a dictionary if you would like to.

Those who are interested in taking part in this research are more than welcome to do so. It would be a great honour if someone took part in this. I would like to thank you in advance and thank everyone from the bottom of my heart for reading this topic whether they take part or not. Thank you very much.

Here is the link to the questionnaire: http://www.efeel.to/survey/umineko/

NasakenaiMono

AuraTwilight

2012-03-25, 21:39

Can someone post a translation of that survey?

Prototype909

2012-03-26, 22:26

But regarding the contents of the diary. I'm pretty sure it does contain the truth.
Ushiromiya Eva's diary, the Book of the Single Truth, has written within it the truth of Rokkenjima during October 4th and 5th, 1986.
During 4th and 5th is the key here.

I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point but I felt obliged to throw my thoughts into the pot

I don't think anyone is disputing whether or not "the truth" is contained in Eva's diary, but rather how "absolute" is that truth?

No matter what was written in Eva's diary (Which we will in all likelihood never get to read), we have no way of knowing how accurate it is.

So when we as the readers see

Ushiromiya Eva's diary, the Book of the Single Truth, has written within it the truth of Rokkenjima during October 4th and 5th, 1986.

We're inclined to think - "This is the absolute answer to everything"

But in reality it, as many people have stated (In a much more succinct manner than myself) it could just be - "Eva saw "X" kill "Y" and misunderstood the situation and labeled "X" as the culprit, even though it was self-defense."

So while it's true, that might technically be "The truth" as it's still a first hand account of what went on during October 4th and 5th, 1986, that would still be tainted by Eva's own biases and gaps of observation.

This seems more reasonable unless you want to believe Eva just watched everyone be brutally murdered one after the other from beginning to end, and only decided to save anyone once she was the only one left.

Most of Umineko in general seemed to be about taking a dump on the concept of an absolute truth anyways, I don't see why Eva's diary would be exempt here (You know other than the fact that it would give us, at the very least a more accurate conception of what happened compared to any of the Game boards). Even then, it's like that Eva's truth would still be tainted by Eva's "love" or lack thereof

It sort've ties back in with Episode 4's quote of "So it's pointless to investigate anymore, correct? Because................the truth inside of you is already decided." As well as multiple quotes across the series about humans being unable to use Red Truth, or being incapable of reaching a 100% certainty about much of anything.

GreyZone

2012-03-28, 13:39

The book of one truth is not the "absolute answer", as some things like the identity of Ikuko would be outside of Eva's possible knowledge of the incident.

HOWEVER it could at least gives us the last puzzle-pieces necassary to put together the truth of Rokkenjima PRIME. Did Battler in fact remember the promise? Was there actually any killing aside from the deaths by the "accident"? If yes, were they just caused by the paranoia of the murder mystery game or did someone intentionally started killing people?

You cannot solve a puzzle without the actual puzzle-parts...

Aside from this, the gameboard was already solved long ago (at least the murders). But we still have no chance in solving prime or understanding completly what the Meta-world is, as long as there are as many possible interpretations as they exist right now...

RandomAvatarFan

2012-03-28, 13:52

But we still have no chance in solving prime or understanding completly what the Meta-world is, as long as there are as many possible interpretations as they exist right now...

I'm not sure if that's completely true.
Beatrice made this game solvable.
If we're told that there's only "one single truth" then that truth must somehow be hidden within the game. I'm certain that the truth of Prime can be found if look closer.

AuraTwilight

2012-03-28, 14:15

Beatrice's game isn't Rokkenjima Prime. It was in fact designed NOT to be.

GreyZone

2012-03-28, 14:45

I'm not sure if that's completely true.
Beatrice made this game solvable.
If we're told that there's only "one single truth" then that truth must somehow be hidden within the game. I'm certain that the truth of Prime can be found if look closer.

Yes, as AuraTwilight said that red truth was not about Prime but about the gameboards.

and...

[...]the gameboard was already solved long ago (at least the murders). But we still have no chance in solving prime or understanding completly what the Meta-world is, as long as there are as many possible interpretations as they exist right now...

So it is this. Even if we theoraticly could find the truth, we have no way to confirm it, and maybe we interpret some things not the same as Ryukishi does, as we are not him. (I wish we could attack him with Blue stakes now...)

But i am still bothered, that both Will and Battler "found the truth", but only Battler got sorcerer status and also, unlike Will, understands more than just the gameboard. As I already wrote in an earlier post, I think that the truth they reached about the gameboard - and about 'Yasu' - are different. But if we assume that Battler didn't have more knowledge at that point than Will had, what is the reason they reached different conclusions? Was it Will's lack of EP5 knowledge? I think he said he found the truth after looking through the first 4 games, but he did not look into the next games... or maybe he just missed all the meta-scenes?

Toku

2012-03-28, 15:27

RandomAvatarFan

2012-03-28, 20:50

Beatrice's game isn't Rokkenjima Prime. It was in fact designed NOT to be.
But it's still possible to derive the truth of Prime from the games. It has to be, or else the game would be absolutely pointless. Yasu's bottles were meant to give her identity, a cry for help, right? But Tohya's bottles were meant to deal with Battler's memories, which must include Prime in there some where.

My point is that although it was never outright stated, what happened on October 4th and 5th of 1986 is there in the games.

Kealym

2012-03-29, 02:32

But i am still bothered, that both Will and Battler "found the truth", but only Battler got sorcerer status and also, unlike Will, understands more than just the gameboard. As I already wrote in an earlier post, I think that the truth they reached about the gameboard - and about 'Yasu' - are different. But if we assume that Battler didn't have more knowledge at that point than Will had, what is the reason they reached different conclusions? Was it Will's lack of EP5 knowledge? I think he said he found the truth after looking through the first 4 games, but he did not look into the next games... or maybe he just missed all the meta-scenes?
Well, I agree that what Battler and Will solved were different things. But only really that Battler solved both the gameboards AND regained his Prime memories. So, I think they reached the SAME conclusion, but Battler probably had the bonus of knowing some of what went down in Prime. And then he ACCEPTED the invitation to serve as the new Beatrice, weaving new games. I'd also mention that Will is ... well, a different sort of being than Battler. He SEEMS to be the combination of the 20 Van Dine rules and "readers that aren't such jackasses". I don;t even know what it would mean for a character like him or Dlanor to go around creating mysteries, since their very existence is to hold the mysteries of others up toa certain scrutiny. Yeah, there's the matter of Lambda apparently weaving a game on her own, but she's already a witch, anyways, and there's been ALOT of discussion about how End was written, anyways, since it's such a weird gameboard.

But it's still possible to derive the truth of Prime from the games. It has to be, or else the game would be absolutely pointless. Yasu's bottles were meant to give her identity, a cry for help, right? But Tohya's bottles were meant to deal with Battler's memories, which must include Prime in there some where.

My point is that although it was never outright stated, what happened on October 4th and 5th of 1986 is there in the games.
I'm sorry to say you seem to just be encountering the same thing that left some people unsatisfied with the ending - there's no way to verify what the truth of Prime is without Ryukishi just telling us, and the vast majority of EP8 seems to be him saying he not only has no interest in doing so, but that it's better this way, too. Just because Tohya's stories may have worked in some of his actual fragmented memory doesn't mean it's possible to work out what those bits were, or how major or minor those details are, and I think to think otherwise, based on what's currently available, is a bit of wishful thinking.

Drifloon

2012-03-29, 02:54

Well, this implies, to me, that Ryukishi believes you can deduce the truth of Prime from the game:

K The ideas about what actually happened in the real world are really diverse.

R One of the things that you can really know from within the story is that „Eva knew something but decided to never to tell Ange about it.“. Based on that many different things have been said in the meta world, and there were also several depictions that hinted at the truth, and it might be a common factor that interpretations on that will diverge. If you start thinking from that point though, even if some small parts are different, you can guess that on this island „a regretable incident happened because of certain actions that those people took“. It’s sufficient if you start thinking further from there. Why was it that Beatrice said so often „It all becomes easier once you accept the witch!“?!

That said, Prime doesn't really interest me, honestly. I'm much more interested in the mysteries of the gameboards that we actually saw play out. Prime's just a huge cat box, there isn't really any kind of intriguing mystery in there or even anything that appears impossible. You could claim anything happened.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-03-29, 14:34

I'm sorry to say you seem to just be encountering the same thing that left some people unsatisfied with the ending
Nah, that's what makes this even more fun. The game can continue as long as we, the players, want. A mystery game ends when the answer is given, like what Gaap said back in EP7. I'm sure Ryukishi knows what happened on Prime, and if he finds someone create a theory that matches his...

GreyZone

2012-03-29, 15:29

a new umineko manga with the name "logic game" will be released soon. Maybe it will have some answers? Or is it just an old side story i don't know about?

Nah, that's what makes this even more fun. The game can continue as long as we, the players, want. A mystery game ends when the answer is given, like what Gaap said back in EP7. I'm sure Ryukishi knows what happened on Prime, and if he finds someone create a theory that matches his...

But then our reasoning will only go around in an endless circle, as it does now... how many times were we repeating the "who is Ikuko"-discussions? And the results? Pros and Cons were given, but nobody changed their opinion about it... so basicly I think we "discussed enough already". Until last month i saw updates in Spoilers/Discussions/Theories almost every hour. Now it's just around 2 posts per day. And if nothing great happens, like the translation of "Our Confessions", then the discussion will just drop till everyone is bored of the catbox, just as it happened in EP8 prime, after Ikuko refused publishing the book of one truth.

jjblue1

2012-03-30, 07:40

a new umineko manga with the name "logic game" will be released soon. Maybe it will have some answers? Or is it just an old side story i don't know about?

If it's a sidestory I haven't head of it either... I'd love if it were to have some answers... or at least some extra material... I'd also love a manga version of Our confession though...

But then our reasoning will only go around in an endless circle, as it does now... how many times were we repeating the "who is Ikuko"-discussions? And the results? Pros and Cons were given, but nobody changed their opinion about it... so basicly I think we "discussed enough already". Until last month i saw updates in Spoilers/Discussions/Theories almost every hour. Now it's just around 2 posts per day. And if nothing great happens, like the translation of "Our Confessions", then the discussion will just drop till everyone is bored of the catbox, just as it happened in EP8 prime, after Ikuko refused publishing the book of one truth.

Well, new theories came up and people considered them and I think the discussion also gets more intense when someone new with new logic ideas and new perspectives join the theorizing.

Though it's true that it's hard to prove things as long as answers aren't given and that if the same people keep on discussing it, after a certain while they'll reach the point where there's nothing else they can come up with.

... though the reason why people stopped discussing in EP 8 is implied to be more due to morality issues than lack of material.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-03-30, 21:07

Well, new theories came up and people considered them and I think the discussion also gets more intense when someone new with new logic ideas and new perspectives join the theorizing.

Though it's true that it's hard to prove things as long as answers aren't given and that if the same people keep on discussing it, after a certain while they'll reach the point where there's nothing else they can come up with.

... though the reason why people stopped discussing in EP 8 is implied to be more due to morality issues than lack of material.

Maybe if we all reach a point of agreement, send in our blue truth to Ryukishi and make him respond? You know you want to try, no matter how unreasonably impossible it will be! :heh:

And if nothing great happens, like the translation of "Our Confessions", then the discussion will just drop till everyone is bored of the catbox, just as it happened in EP8 prime, after Ikuko refused publishing the book of one truth.
That's true too. I'm more upset I couldn't have joined in on the theorizing all the way back when EP1 was actually released instead almost a year after EP8 comes out.

jjblue1

2012-03-30, 22:53

Maybe if we all reach a point of agreement, send in our blue truth to Ryukishi and make him respond? You know you want to try, no matter how unreasonably impossible it will be! :heh:

There's the problem I can't speak Japanese... and I'm not sure if we can reach an agreement... through Ryukishi is probably keeping an eye to the Japanese message board so maybe he'll hand out more answers in the future... let's hope the new manga will be something like that!

RandomAvatarFan

2012-04-23, 15:35

Okay, I was going through the script, and I found all the prizes for the quizzes. Is it possible to get the very first one (toilet brush) and the last one (Mr. Jiro Tomitake) or are they just easter eggs? If its possible, I would love to learn how to get them. I can get zero medals, but still only get a message card from everyone, and not a toilet brush. Still, I want to see Ange throw Mr. Jiro Tomitake overboard...

GreyZone

2012-04-23, 15:46

LyricalAura

2012-04-23, 15:50

RandomAvatarFan

2012-04-23, 16:10

I'm still confused about the toilet brush... it's zero medals for the message card, but zero medals + quiz failed for the brush...how would you do that?

Kylon99

2012-04-24, 20:03

Well, this implies, to me, that Ryukishi believes you can deduce the truth of Prime from the game:

Hey, I was just thinking about this while I was re-reading EP1-2 and I believe there are a few things we can figure out about Rokkenjima Prime.

Most notably, that Eva survived and has the ring and succeeded in the Ushiromiya headship. And of course that she took guardianship of Ange. I think these were things that Tooya wrote about in a way of reconciling the Battler in his memories with Ange, who technically disappeared after her fall from the building.

In any case, how this relates to Beatrice is that most likely her plan to execute the Epitaph Ceremony failed and that Eva did solve the Epitaph, because she had to give the ring to Eva. And so, in the end her gambit to free Shannon failed, and all personalities died, similar to the way shown in EP7, where she became just a shell of a person.

ErenselTheJester

2012-05-01, 14:55

In any case, how this relates to Beatrice is that most likely her plan to execute the Epitaph Ceremony failed and that Eva did solve the Epitaph, because she had to give the ring to Eva. And so, in the end her gambit to free Shannon failed, and all personalities died, similar to the way shown in EP7, where she became just a shell of a person.

I don't think so. Beatrice became a shell after she had realized that she was the heir to the family fortune as well as Kinzo's illegitimate child.

Ultimately, she realized that all her experiences were the result of a predetermined fate or destiny, leading up to her being Beatrice. However, she didn't want this. She wanted Battler to get her off the island but now that she was Beatrice, the heir to the Ushiromiya fortune, she's bounded to the island as its master with the only way of freeing herself would be to pass the fortune on to somebody else.

So, really, Eva's solving of the puzzle was more or less a blessing, though I don't think it was exactly what she had in mind.

Prototype909

2012-05-01, 20:41

She wanted Battler to get her off the island but now that she was Beatrice, the heir to the Ushiromiya fortune, she's bounded to the island as its master with the only way of freeing herself would be to pass the fortune on to somebody else.

So, really, Eva's solving of the puzzle was more or less a blessing, though I don't think it was exactly what she had in mind.

Episode 5 - This child has nothing to gain from having someone solve the epitaph.

The gold of the Golden Land belongs to this child. She had absolutely no need to make you find it for her or to snatch it away herself.

Whether the epitaph's riddle is solved or not, this child stands nothing to gain at all.

Regardless of whether the epitaph is solved or not, Beato has nothing to gain.

Drifloon

2012-05-02, 01:27

Besides, she'd already left the headship to Krauss anyway. I don't see why she'd still feel any responsibility.

ErenselTheJester

2012-05-02, 19:19

Episode 5 - This child has nothing to gain from having someone solve the epitaph.

The gold of the Golden Land belongs to this child. She had absolutely no need to make you find it for her or to snatch it away herself.

Whether the epitaph's riddle is solved or not, this child stands nothing to gain at all.

Regardless of whether the epitaph is solved or not, Beato has nothing to gain.

Those red truths were made under the rule that the gold belongs to her, as the assumption was that she was doing the murders for some monetary gain. However, if the epitaph was solved, the gold would no longer be her's, and so she gains nothing. Yet, she is liberated from being heir to the Ushiromiya fortune, which is what she wants.

kevan3

2012-05-04, 21:21

This may seem weird, but how many times is Mortal Stampede played in all 8 Episodes?

Drifloon

2012-05-05, 05:43

Off the top of my head, it's played once in EP4 (George vs Gaap) and once in EP6 (George vs EVA-Beatrice). Not sure if it's used anywhere else.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-05, 11:12

Easily done.
Let's see... it appeared first on Episode 4 where it was used twice. First in the middle of the fight between Jessica and Ronove, not the first sequence, the second.
Then it's used again during the fight between George and Gaap, but this happens after Kyrie's group begins their escape.

As for chiru... only once, during the fight between George and Eva in EP6, like drifloon mentioned

Kylon99

2012-05-05, 22:49

I don't think so. Beatrice became a shell after she had realized that she was the heir to the family fortune as well as Kinzo's illegitimate child.

Ultimately, she realized that all her experiences were the result of a predetermined fate or destiny, leading up to her being Beatrice. However, she didn't want this. She wanted Battler to get her off the island but now that she was Beatrice, the heir to the Ushiromiya fortune, she's bounded to the island as its master with the only way of freeing herself would be to pass the fortune on to somebody else.

So, really, Eva's solving of the puzzle was more or less a blessing, though I don't think it was exactly what she had in mind.

That's not exactly what I meant. I was talking about her plan from the quotes I found in EP1 and EP2. In those episodes, it goes on and on about how Shannon was trapped and the only escape (since George and Battler didn't pan out) was Beatrice's ceremony; one that will grant Shannon (and Kanon) release through death.

It's this thing I was talking about (but I think I forgot to mention that initially... heh) that failed. This was her 'plan,' which required the murders to work. And if Eva did inherit the ring and the headship, then it could only be because she solved the epitaph. Solving the Epitaph means Beatrice's plan to use the Epitaph as a spell to release Shannon and Kanon must have failed at some point.

Ferdicai

2012-05-23, 12:29

guys, I have one question about Kyrie in Ep7 -8 ... I don't know why anyone told Battler that Kyrie is his real mother. Has anyone an explanation?

Drifloon

2012-05-23, 12:54

I'm not sure what you mean.

Rudolf was going to tell him, but then a serial murder happened (with him dying, most of the time, and even when he didn't it wasn't exactly a good time to go into it).

Jan-Poo

2012-05-23, 13:42

I don't know why anyone told Battler that Kyrie is his real mother.

You need a reason to tell the truth?

Or maybe you are asking why did nobody tell him so? If that's so, Rudolf was the only one (apart a bribed doctor or two) who knew. He didn't tell because he wanted everyone to believe Battler was Asumu's son so he could marry Asumu without any problem and make the three of them live like a happy family. After Asumu died he didn't have the guts to tell the truth until the family meeting of 1986

jjblue1

2012-05-23, 18:07

You need a reason to tell the truth?

Or maybe you are asking why did nobody tell him so? If that's so, Rudolf was the only one (apart a bribed doctor or two) who knew. He didn't tell because he wanted everyone to believe Battler was Asumu's son so he could marry Asumu without any problem and make the three of them live like a happy family. After Asumu died he didn't have the guts to tell the truth until the family meeting of 1986

Hum... I seem to remember Asumu was already his wife when Battler was born and that he didn't tell because, to him, it was easier to replace Asumu's stillborn with Battler, getting 'rid' of Kyrie who was merely his mistress than to handle the real situation... though in the end he never got rid of Kyrie...

Jan-Poo

2012-05-23, 19:34

According to Kyrie in EP3, Rudolf married Asumu because he had no other choice since Asumu gave birth to a child while she didn't. In other words Kyrie believed that Rudolf was forced to marry Asumu because of that child and she makes a point that she would have been married instead of Asumu if the roles were swapped. Of course she was totally wrong, but as much as her "love" made her see things that don't exist, even her couldn't believe that if Asumu was already married with Rudolf.

Kealym

2012-05-23, 22:16

Renall

2012-05-24, 10:17

It's also mentioned that while they got pregnant at about the same time, Asumu announced it IMMEDIATELY, and Rudolf, probably feeling pressured, moved her into his family register. Kyrie only discovered her pregnancy after that ... and when Asumu had the stillbirth, found it LESS AWKWARD to swap the babies, than immediately change wives.

It's one of the most utterly crap things done by a character in this story.The best part is it never got adequately flushed out enough to provide any sort of general motivation for it beyond "I'm too lazy and prideful to switch women, but not so lazy that I can't engage in major medical tampering and serious felonies in order to not have to fess up to both of them about it."

If we knew, well, anything at all about Asumu and why she might have made him catch hell for it had she known (or had she been dumped), maybe it would go over better overall. Kyrie certainly did enough implying that Asumu was more clever than she acted. I mean, had Asumu pretty much been planning to ruin Rudolf if he didn't stick with her, maybe his desperation would make more sense.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-05-24, 11:44

Yeah. Remember who Asumu and Kyrie are. I was under the impression that despite everything the Ushiromiya family has... they're still pretty weak. Sumadera women are scary people.

Judoh

2012-05-24, 11:52

Yeah. Remember who Asumu and Kyrie are. I was under the impression that despite everything the Ushiromiya family has... they're still pretty weak. Sumadera women are scary people.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Asumu isn't a Sumadera. She can't be because Kyrie believes that Battler isn't blood related to her. Actually I don't think we ever learned what Asumu's maiden name was.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-05-24, 16:03

Wasn't Asumu Kyrie's sister? What are you trying to tell me? D=

TwilightsCall

2012-05-24, 16:04

No, Kyrie's Sister was the woman who tried to kill Ange at the end of Ep 4

RandomAvatarFan

2012-05-24, 16:12

Well... it's not impossible for someone to have more than one sibling...

I don't know where I thought Asumu, Kyrie, and Kasumi were all related, and looking around, there's not a single place on the web that says it.

jjblue1

2012-05-24, 16:54

Kealym

2012-05-24, 18:05

The best part is it never got adequately flushed out enough to provide any sort of general motivation for it beyond "I'm too lazy and prideful to switch women, but not so lazy that I can't engage in major medical tampering and serious felonies in order to not have to fess up to both of them about it."

If we knew, well, anything at all about Asumu and why she might have made him catch hell for it had she known (or had she been dumped), maybe it would go over better overall. Kyrie certainly did enough implying that Asumu was more clever than she acted. I mean, had Asumu pretty much been planning to ruin Rudolf if he didn't stick with her, maybe his desperation would make more sense.
Ah, Asumu HAS to have known Kyrie was pregnant, too. As you say, it's hard to guage - Rudolf seemed to have really genuinely loved her and all that, but Kyrie notes that Asumu acted "repulsively" to "corner" Rudolf into marrying her. But then, Kyrie is angry and bitter and spent a dozen years totally drinkin' that haterade because she fought and she lost 'cause of her own overconfidence.

I see no reason to assume Asumu was doing anything beyond, I dunno ... regular "put a ring on it" badgering? She seems to have been a good mom, and it's not like the other relatives have anything bad to say about her (though they might just be respectful of her dead-ness, or Ryukishi banished her to the same realm as Kinzo's poor UNNAMED wife).

... ... honestly though I think Ryu just didn't think too hard about it at the beginning. One supposed, for Rudolf, he was fine having a legitimate child and a little illegitimate one off to the side ... but having JUST the child off to the side would've been ...awkward? Yeah, it should have been elaborated a bit.

Geez, now I'm thinking both babies should have lived (but STILL switched, because lolRudolf or something) , and in 1998 Ange would be hunted down by an angry, bitter Battler Sumadera who'd been raised by Kasumi for reasons I can't think of yet. :heh:

GoldenLand

2012-05-25, 05:45

The impression I got was that Rudolf really did love Asumu more, and that's probably why he did the switch. It's possible that he would have felt obligated to divorce Asumu and marry Kyrie if Kyrie was the one keeping the living baby.

But there's no way around it, switching the babies makes Rudolf a scumbag. And he definitely knew it, too. It would have been an interesting angle for Ryukishi to have explored: we know he was too frightened of Kyrie to tell the truth, but how guilty did Rudolf feel, all those years? Or did he not feel guilty? I wonder if he thought at the time something like "Kyrie is so tough that she can overcome this, but Asumu will be shattered if she loses her baby..." or if it was more along the lines of "I want to live with Asumu and the baby as a happy family". Not that either of those makes him look good.

:heh: Hell, maybe the true reason for the Rokkenjima incident was that Rudolf did tell Kyrie the truth, and she took it even worse that he thought. It could seriously have sparked the whole thing.

Renall

2012-05-25, 10:17

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-25, 14:22

Honestly, we know very little about Battler's relationship with Asumu. We get a few hints/jokes about their vehicle phobia and he was clearly pretty close to her in some fashion given his reaction to Rudolf remarrying, but she gets no flashbacks or anything and she probably should have. It's hard for us to even understand Battler's anger when his mother is such an ephemeral figure.

I felt the same way about Kinzo's wife. Remember her? Yeah, she doesn't ever come up much, does she. We know she thought he was up to something. What did she find out? How much did she know, and how much was unconfirmed paranoia? It would've been kinda neat to know. Or at least to know her name or something. Asumu's family name as well. It doesn't appear that those were shocking secrets or anything.

They were considered 'who-gives-a-rat's-ass-secrets', so maybe that's why they weren't included. Though, I agree they would have made for quite neat material to be included, and much better use of screen time than repeating Maria's freting over her rose a thousand times. Asumu's releationship with Battler, or even the interplay of the the two of them and Rudolf as a family would have been heartwarming (at least we can infer so from the small references that are made, and if we ignore the fact that Rudolf is a total dick), though I have to say I've always thought Asumu was a cow and EP6 made that impression stronger. Same goes for her parents.

As for Kinzo's wife...Ah, well, she's probably the most wronged character in Umineko, the poor thing doesn't even get a name, is low in rank, and gets cheated on CONSTANTLY. Though to be fair, she was forced on him, so Kinzo didn't have any obligation to love her, but at least have a little respect for your own wife, man. I mean, Kinzo's adultery always seems to be treated as a very light sin (well, he has much much worse ones in his records, so let's not sweat the tiny details...).

Jan-Poo

2012-05-25, 14:32

Seriously, when you consider all that he did, adultery doesn't even look like it's worth of mention.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-05-25, 15:22

Kinzo didn't have any obligation to love her, but at least have a little respect for your own wife, man. I mean, Kinzo's adultery always seems to be treated as a very light sin

I mean Eva and Hideyoshi fell in love, and even Natsuhi learned to care for the Ushiromiya family.

Kinzo forces his children to "suffer" the same thing he did. Even though he seems like someone who would want "true love" to prosper, he instead arrange marriages on business value. I assume Asumu's family must have been powerful, and we know the Sumaderas are. Rudolf was lucky and was able to have both. His older siblings learned to love what they have, and they do love what they have.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-25, 21:01

I doubt Asumu's family was powerful, at any rate it wasn't rich.

Both Asumu's parent died in 1986 and apparently there wasn't a good enough inheritance for Battler that Rudolf could use to fix his legal problems.

Come to think of it... this might have been one of the reasons Rudolf went that far to get Battler back. But even if he got the inheritance money, we know it wasn't enough to solve his problems.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-26, 06:54

It's not important either way.
After all, even if Battler did get any sort of inheritance from his grandparents, do you seriously think he'd let the 'old bastard' mooch any off him?

Jan-Poo

2012-05-26, 07:27

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-26, 16:01

Yeah, I was just joking when I said that. My whole point was: it's not important.

jjblue1

2012-05-26, 17:04

Yes he would if he knew the whole family would be destroyed. He may have a problem with Rudolf but not with Kyrie and Ange.

Besides do you think that Rudolf would rather try to get money from his brother than his son if he had the choice? Battler doesn't even care about money that much, unlike all the adults.

Lastly all the above is irrelevant because Battler was still a minor and therefore his guardian would automatically get custody over the inherited money.

In a tip is said Battler doesn't have much money... though considering Battler's grandad apparently took even worse the whole 'Rudolf remarring with the woman with whom he cheated his daughter while she was still alive thing' he might have arraged for Battler not to inherit anything until he was of legal age... or if he were to join again the Ushiromiya family.

:heh: Hell, maybe the true reason for the Rokkenjima incident was that Rudolf did tell Kyrie the truth, and she took it even worse that he thought. It could seriously have sparked the whole thing.

When I was nursing a Battler culprit theory I thought Asumu might have been the motive behind the murders.
There was so little said about her so it made things definitely mysterious. I admit I was pretty disappointed when nothing was cleared about her apart that she wasn't as nice as she looked (though it was Rudolf who said this and he might have been lying or simply asking too much from her considering he might have expected her to swallow a betrayal and a baby switching).

Honestly, we know very little about Battler's relationship with Asumu. We get a few hints/jokes about their vehicle phobia and he was clearly pretty close to her in some fashion given his reaction to Rudolf remarrying, but she gets no flashbacks or anything and she probably should have. It's hard for us to even understand Battler's anger when his mother is such an ephemeral figure.

I felt the same way about Kinzo's wife. Remember her? Yeah, she doesn't ever come up much, does she. We know she thought he was up to something. What did she find out? How much did she know, and how much was unconfirmed paranoia? It would've been kinda neat to know. Or at least to know her name or something. Asumu's family name as well. It doesn't appear that those were shocking secrets or anything.

I agree. They're just random mysterious figures tossed in the story but that had such a marginal role it was disappointing. In Asumu's case it was worse because she seemed important and yet she was left even more in the dark. Even the manga refused to show her full face (which is pointless because they just hid her eyes... but it's not like eyes are drawn that differently from character to character... -_-). Honestly I would love if Ryukishi were to write a tip about her.

Or about what had happened to Battler in those 6 years. All we get is 'he'd been really busy'. Doing what? Normal student life? If that's it, it sounds like an excuse, if however let's say his grandparents ended up sick and he had to take care of them, it's entirely another matter.

Asumu's releationship with Battler, or even the interplay of the the two of them and Rudolf as a family would have been heartwarming (at least we can infer so from the small references that are made, and if we ignore the fact that Rudolf is a total dick), though I have to say I've always thought Asumu was a cow and EP6 made that impression stronger. Same goes for her parents.

I would have loved to see more about Battler's family pre asumu's death. I don't know how much Kyrie's tale is not biased so I'm not really sure we can judge Asumu from it.
I found interesting how Kirye though that regardless of Rudolf being married to Asumu she still though she could work her way to him and Asumu didn't let her get close... It's sort of expected a woman wouldn't want her husband to cheat on her but Kirye seemed to find this surprising so it intrigued me. Though it never got developed further from Kirye saying Asumu had been more clever than her and tricked everyone into believing she was frail when she was not... or something like that.

Renall

2012-05-26, 21:18

jjblue1

2012-05-27, 16:43

Battler certainly makes for an interesting culprit concept from an alibi standpoint, doesn't he? He's been gone six years and the only people who can confirm what he was doing are dead.

I mean of course there's no evidence of anything at all, but there's also no evidence of anything at all. In a mystery, that's no help of course, but in an investigation, it's awfully suspicious.

Hell, Battler could've been up to anything at all and we'd know nothing. In many ways, we don't know the "true" Battler at all. The version we came to know is one filtered through several people who either hadn't seen him in a while or had very fuzzy memories of him.

But with no real evidence to suggest he was any different, that's not really an avenue that can be explored in any way.

Definitely. Plus we know he head a grudge toward his father for 6 years and that during that time apparently he never tried to see again his cousins or his other relatives, which can imply his grudge extended on them as well (well in Ep 7 he writes them and this imply he has no grudge against them but it's an info we get pretty late...).

Though he says he has nothing against Kirye, well, she's actually the woman with whom his father cheated his mother so he could be lying.

And he might think that since the servants were loyal to Ushiromiya Kinzo they too deserve his rage.

Add to this we don't know how Asumu and Battler's grandparents died.
If, let's say Asumu committed suicide or died in a suspicious incident he might think that someone among the Ushiromiya was involved or that Asumu figured out his father was cheating her and couldn't survive it.

If Battler's granparents were grief-striken for the death of their daughter he might have thought the pain had shortened their lifespan, making them 'grow old' faster.

Plus Battler's grandparents themselves might have poisoned Battler against his own family.

Add to this that Battler's life might have taken a turn for worse after he left his family as the pain for his mother's death might have been combined with the taunts and bullying of some classmates about his father having an affair behind his mother's back, not mentioning he had to change school so he might have been forced to leave his old classmates.

Plus George got the girl he liked... a girl that never tried to contact him even if he suffered the loss of his mother (and to whom he might have written though the letter might have never reached her).

Oh, he has plenty of motives to kill all the Ushiromiya and you can even stretch things to include the servants.

Plus the 6 years gap allows the theory that his personality might be fake and he's acting a part when actually he has grown into someone completely different and is planning to have his revenge.

Yes, Ep 7 implied things weren't so bad for Battler, that the relation between Battler and his dad slowly improved in those 6 years but in the first 4 episodes all we know is that Battler is still not living with his family but he's making an effort to show up at home for Ange's sake... which can be viewed also as him studying the situation to find the best moment to strike... :P

Sure, in the end Battler wasn't the culprit but it wasn't like the Battler culprit theory had no basis, at least from a motive standpoint.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-27, 18:14

jjblue1

2012-05-27, 19:16

And the best part of it is that it makes for a very interesting culprit psychosynthesis (which is one of the most fun aspects of a mystery novel). Plus, it is supported by various facts shown within the story. For example, why is it that he never dies until the ninth twilight?

The only point where it stumbles though, is that Battler would need to have very good knowledge of the mansion's layout in order to be able to execute all those tricks meticulously, which he clearly couldn't, because he had six years to visit Rokenjima. He wasn't even aware of how many master keys existed. And he doesn't know about the bomb either (though that last one could be tackled if we blamed it on accident, couldn't it?).

I remember the 'Battler culprit' was one of my first theories, along with the 'Rosa culprit' while reading EP1...Aah, those were simpler times.

Well, actually Battler could have been remembering the old mansion layout. If you assume he wanted revenge right from the beginning but was forced to postpone because he was only 12 he might have nursed an obsession for murdering his family in closed room and therefore made his best to remember the house's layout.

He could have gotten the extra info from Ange, plus as a child he was also friend with Shannon and with many servants so he could have known the master keys number. Sure this involves Battler lying about not knowing things, premeditation and luck (as things might have changed after 6 years) but hey Yasu counted on luck as well. And yes, he would miss direct knowledge about the guesthouse (unless, unknown to us, he tracked down one of the maids that aren't on Rokkenjima that day and asked her for more info) but I think he still would have enough knowledge to plan things.

Thunder Book

2012-05-27, 19:49

Ah I love the Battler Culprit Theory. It makes Episode 8's ending better for me as well, giving Tohya a rather frightening reason to be afraid of his old personality reemerging one day, and why he would go as far as attempting suicide to deal with it. It makes BATTLER's rather bizarre desire to make Ange want to not know the truth of the Rokkenjimma Incident much more interesting to me if he's really the culprit (And it turns Twilight into a rather devious parallel to what happened in Banquet. It really reminds me of the "North Wind and the Sun" strategy thing Beato tried.).

Still, you really have to stretch everything to make BCT work, and I doubt Ryu07 intended it as a possible explanation for what happened in Prime. I guess you could try and argue that the many parallels between Battler and Kinzo were to hint at madness in Battler, but still that's also a stretch.

AuraTwilight

2012-05-27, 20:53

I doubt Ryu07 intended it as a possible explanation for what happened in Prime.

He DID create Black Battler, though, as a semi-validation.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-27, 21:05

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-27, 22:28

He DID create Black Battler, though, as a semi-validation.

I don't think that's quite right. Having a Black Battler to embody 'BCT' is not much different than Eva-Trice embodying 'ECT'. After having the goats embody a lot of theories he didn't like in the Ep-8 fight scenes, introducing a monstrous super-boss to the fighting game in response to BCT's refusal to die isn't something I would put past that Ryukishi.

LyricalAura

2012-05-27, 22:52

I don't think that's quite right. Having a Black Battler to embody 'BCT' is not much different than Eva-Trice embodying 'ECT'. After having the goats embody a lot of theories he didn't like in the Ep-8 fight scenes, introducing a monstrous super-boss to the fighting game in response to BCT's refusal to die isn't something I would put past that Ryukishi.

In many ways, Battler is the perfect anti-mystery culprit. That six-year-long blank slate before the incident means that you can invent literally any theory about his motives and personality, and it will be completely unfalsifiable. I think that once Tohya introduced (legitimized?) the idea to the Witch Hunters with his solution to End, Battler probably became a lightning rod for speculation and forgeries because of that. It made him the easiest person to write as the culprit. If you were feeling particularly lazy, you could lay out your forgery and say "Well, he must have had some reason X!" and 50 other Witch Hunters would speculate about it and create one from whole cloth.

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-28, 00:47

In many ways, Battler is the perfect anti-mystery culprit.

I don't disagree with that statement. But rather, because I agree with it I don't think BCT is intended as an actual solution to Umineko 'Prime'.

This is a bit of meta-gaming, which is usually heresy, but if ever there was a game to go meta with....

It's pretty clear that Ryukishi put a lot of work into both the mystery and fantasy sides of things. Whatever the opinions of his talents in both regards, he definitely wanted the readers to pay attention to and enjoy both sides of the story and think about both of them. The riddles were designed to have solutions and be solvable, even if they're really hard.

So any solution that is anti-mystery isn't qualified to be a 'true' answer, just like a solution that is completely anti-fantasy will lack heart and trample on the 'why-dunnit's of the characters. Or at least, that's my understanding of the kind of writer that Ryukishi is.

LyricalAura

2012-05-28, 01:08

I don't disagree with that statement. But rather, because I agree with it I don't think BCT is intended as an actual solution to Umineko 'Prime'.

Oh, I don't think he was the Prime culprit either. I just meant that he made an ideal culprit to the Witch Hunters (and perhaps to some of the readers), not for the story as a whole. I may have my terms backwards; perhaps it would be better to say he's an anti-fantasy culprit, in the sense of accepting any physically possible theory without regard for motive as long as it denies the witch.

Renall

2012-05-28, 14:08

Forgive me, but none of those sound like satisfying whydunnit for the Battler culprit theory to me. At any rate if you are among those who think Yasu's motive was weak, well then there's even more weakness in those.I actually think there are a few possibilities, but none of them would be fully premeditated. I don't think there's a coherent reason Battler could go into the conference with intent to commit even one murder. Whether something could happen later is something else.

But again, no evidence.Oh, I don't think he was the Prime culprit either. I just meant that he made an ideal culprit to the Witch Hunters (and perhaps to some of the readers), not for the story as a whole. I may have my terms backwards; perhaps it would be better to say he's an anti-fantasy culprit, in the sense of accepting any physically possible theory without regard for motive as long as it denies the witch.Unless he was the witch.

Mindfreak!

AuraTwilight

2012-05-28, 14:43

Jan-Poo

2012-05-28, 15:06

What's wrong with the Kyrie and Rudolf culprit theory?

It might have been described as a cruel goat's theory, and it might have been depicted in a pretty stupid way in EP7, but in its core I think it's pretty solid. More than ECT, GCT or BCT

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-28, 19:55

This may sound a little naive, but I think Ryukishi is the kind of sentimental person that would go for a 0 culprit theory. Something like, it really did start out as a prank and a game that Yasu-trice set up to welcome back Battler and then solve everyone's problems with the gold, but the prank was a little too successful. Everyone gets terrified and paranoid and suddenly family members are killing each-other off in absolute terror. If you think about it, that's the same kind of trick that he used in Higurashi's first arc as well.

Well, I guess that's not too different from a Kyrie and Rudolph culprit theory, especially if you suppose that Kyrie is the kind of person that would detect a possible 'culprit' and shoot first if she suspected an imminent threat.

AuraTwilight

2012-05-29, 03:58

What's wrong with the Kyrie and Rudolf culprit theory?

Well, for one thing, it's the biggest damn red herring I've ever seen.

But I'm pretty sure you and I have had this argument before about the possible plausibility of the Rudolf/Kyrie theory.

Aside from that, Yasu's motives and actions really seem to indicate she's taking the wrap for someone else, and George and Battler are the most emotionally compelling matches for that hypothesis.

This may sound a little naive, but I think Ryukishi is the kind of sentimental person that would go for a 0 culprit theory. Something like, it really did start out as a prank and a game that Yasu-trice set up to welcome back Battler and then solve everyone's problems with the gold, but the prank was a little too successful. Everyone gets terrified and paranoid and suddenly family members are killing each-other off in absolute terror. If you think about it, that's the same kind of trick that he used in Higurashi's first arc as well.

That's what I like to think, but it's implied this isn't the case.

and uh. This is Ryukishi here. He wrote Higanbana.

I'm really not trusting the guy who labels a child-rapist murderer as a "sympathetic protagonist" to be able to venerate an entire cast of characters as "innocent."

Renall

2012-05-29, 12:16

I think, if anything, Kyrie/Rudolf is the least plausible "parent rampage" theory. Kyrie strikes me as far too rational to believe that she could get away with it. Likewise, I don't think it's in Hideyoshi and Eva's character to do it; if nothing else, Hideyoshi would assuredly refuse to participate in such a thing. While Krauss and Natsuhi are desperate, I have a hard time believing them that desperate.

Really, Rosa is the only one potentially impulsive enough to believe herself capable of getting away with something like that, irrational enough not to understand why she couldn't, angry enough to become trigger-happy, and lacking someone who can center her morally (such as a spouse) to talk her out of escalating the situation.

And that still doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-29, 12:51

Kyrie/Rudolf could work as the opportunity killers and provided the bomb wasn't part of their plans.

I think that if your goal is
1) to kill someone
2) to get away with it

The best possible strategy is to make it look like an accident.
The second best is make it look like someone else did it.

The key factor is to create the least reason for the institutions to inquire too much about the case. The more the cause of a death seems clear and the more proofs there are to support it, the least are the reason to put efforts in investigations.

However there is also public resonance to take in consideration and that's why the 900 tons bomb is quite a bad choice of "incident". You want people to not think too much about the crime, you don't want to give it internatinal relevance so that years after people will still be inquiring about it.

Now a mass murder is per se something that is bound to attract the attention of media, so it's not an ideal situation, but if a clear suspect exists then it could work.

In other words Rudolf and Kyrie might have figured out that if they played their cards right, they could take advantage of Yasu's plan to frame her, by killing the persons that she was supposed to only pretend to kill.

The servants that were involved could even be used as witness that Yasu indeed planned a series of murders. Even if they say "but it was supposed to be all an act!" how can they prove they weren't manipulated? Even they would end up believing they were. And a Judge would more likely believe that Yasu didn't just pretend to kill, since her victims actually died.

Of course if Kyrie and Rudolf are the culprit they'd only care about killing those relatives that are in the way of the inheritance. Or even just in the way of a mountain of gold, if they found it. But they coudl have killed servants in order to not make it too obvious.

And of course whichever is the culprit, you need to assume that something went wrong since Eva and Battler survived. In the case of Kyrie and Rudolf some of their designated victims might have retaliated causing the casualties to excalate.

Now the reasons supporting the Kyrie and Rudolf culprit theory are
1) There is evidence that Rudolf had a criminal mind. Albeit he never went as far as murdering people he's still guilty of swindling, bribing and kidnapping.
2) Kyrie's murderous mind has been hinted in several occasions and she comes from a Yakuza family that doesn't shy from killing in order to get what they want.
3) It is hinted that Eva's decision to never reveal what happened on Rokkenjima was to protect Ange

AuraTwilight

2012-05-29, 14:05

It's still a huge stretch to explain why the hell Rudolf and Kyrie would kill a whole bunch of kids.

And you failed to address Renall's main problem: If they blow shit up, THEY CAN'T GET THE GOLD, and at the time of the incident, they have literally no way of verifying that the cash card is legitimate. Kyrie, at the very least, shouldn't be killing people on a "maybe".

Jan-Poo

2012-05-29, 14:23

Why do you think that I have failed to explain that when in my premise I said that you need to assume to bomb wasn't in their plan?

Renall

2012-05-29, 15:04

1) There is evidence that Rudolf had a criminal mind. Albeit he never went as far as murdering people he's still guilty of swindling, bribing and kidnapping.A criminal mind? What a piece of work that is! Krauss embezzles from his dead father. All the non-Krauss adults are fine with blackmail. Rudolf may be a cad, but inclination to some forms of criminal activity does not prove inclination toward others. There's no reason to believe he has ever harbored a desire to murder anyone.2) Kyrie's murderous mind has been hinted in several occasions and she comes from a Yakuza family that doesn't shy from killing in order to get what they want.A family Kyrie has estranged herself from, mind you. And while it is undeniable that Kyrie is the only character who has in actual fact admitted to murderous intent, we must bear in mind that it was against a single very specific person who had wronged her and that she had taken almost twelve years to actually resolve herself to commit the act. If anything, I'd argue this works against any claim that she would kill on impulse.

Also, it's worth noting that Kyrie's attitude somewhat suggests she was willing to murder Asumu and face the consequences of it. Such was the apparent depth of her hatred for the woman. While it's not absolute, if Kyrie was willing to shoulder culpability for her criminal acts, it could be evidence that at some point even she recognizes herself to be capable of going too far and needing to be punished for it. And this is a woman who loathed her intended victim.3) It is hinted that Eva's decision to never reveal what happened on Rokkenjima was to protect AngeThere are many other reasons one might be inclined to protect Ange than the involvement of her parents, however. For example, if Yasu really was the murderer, and she revealed to Eva that it was for Battler's sake, and perhaps Eva believed Battler had been killed... well, you wouldn't tell his sister a crazy girlfriend murdered him and the others for stupid reasons, would you?

Also, Battler is potentially workable as a culprit faction unto himself, so even if it's "I want to protect Ange because her family was involved," it doesn't necessarily follow from this that Kyrie and Rudolf were the ones up to no good.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-29, 15:22

A criminal mind? What a piece of work that is! Krauss embezzles from his dead father. All the non-Krauss adults are fine with blackmail. Rudolf may be a cad, but inclination to some forms of criminal activity does not prove inclination toward others. There's no reason to believe he has ever harbored a desire to murder anyone.A family Kyrie has estranged herself from, mind you. And while it is undeniable that Kyrie is the only character who has in actual fact admitted to murderous intent, we must bear in mind that it was against a single very specific person who had wronged her and that she had taken almost twelve years to actually resolve herself to commit the act. If anything, I'd argue this works against any claim that she would kill on impulse.

Rudolf has a long history of criminal activities that Imply a lack of morality. And you need to admit that kidnapping is a fairly more serious crime than embezzlment.
As for the fact that it doesn't mean he could kill is something that I admitted it myself, so there's no reason to argue. But it is certainly easier to think someone who lacks morality and respect of the laws could turn into a cold blooded murderer than a someone we have no reason to think is significantly deviant.

As for Kyrie there is no reason to believe that she distanced herself from her family because she didn't like them being yakuza.
And your argument only proves that she wouldn't kill out of impulse, but that is not my thesis.

Also, it's worth noting that Kyrie's attitude somewhat suggests she was willing to murder Asumu and face the consequences of it. Such was the apparent depth of her hatred for the woman. While it's not absolute, if Kyrie was willing to shoulder culpability for her criminal acts, it could be evidence that at some point even she recognizes herself to be capable of going too far and needing to be punished for it.

I see absolutely no evidence in what Kyrie said about being "ready to face the consequence" that she would feel any kind of remorse or the will to be punished if she could avoid it.

For example, if Yasu really was the murderer, and she revealed to Eva that it was for Battler's sake, and perhaps Eva believed Battler had been killed... well, you wouldn't tell his sister a crazy girlfriend murdered him and the others for stupid reasons, would you?

Why she had to tell the reason? In Yasu's case she could simply tell that she knows she did it but she has no idea as to why.
However in Rudolf's and Kyrie's case she really couldn't say anything.

Also, Battler is potentially workable as a culprit faction unto himself, so even if it's "I want to protect Ange because her family was involved," it doesn't necessarily follow from this that Kyrie and Rudolf were the ones up to no good.

Oh and I'm not denying that, but it only really works for Battler, Rudolf and Kyrie.
Except in the case of Battler you need to imagine a completely different personality to justify the theory of him being a culprit. In the case of Rudolf and Kyrie you just need to make a few steps further.

EDIT: Oh I forgot another quite important evidence: the fact that Ange went on a mental breakdown when she read the truth about Rokkenjima. Which again only really works with Battler, Rudolf or Kyrie. (Okay it could work even for Maria, but there's just no way Maria can be the culprit).

Renall

2012-05-29, 15:40

Rudolf has a long history of criminal activities that Imply a lack of morality. And you need to admit that kidnapping is a fairly more serious crime than embezzlment.
As for the fact that it doesn't mean he could kill is something that I admitted it myself, so there's no reason to argue. But it is certainly easier to think someone who lacks morality and respect of the laws could turn into a cold blooded murderer than a someone we have no reason to think is significantly deviant.

As for Kyrie there is no reason to believe that she distanced herself from her family because she didn't like them being yakuza.
And your argument only proves that she wouldn't kill out of impulse, but that is not my thesis.You're making a common mistake that I think a lot of people make, which is that a person who does not respect the law is therefore a "bad person" who has fundamental moral failings that will extend to any criminal activity.

This can be true for some people. Genuine psychopaths, basically. People who lack empathy or conscience and whose every action is taken solely to benefit themselves with no concern for the way it will affect others.

I do not by any means believe that Rudolf is a psychopath. He is, in fact, quite afraid of the consequences of his actions and aware that the things he does may hurt or upset other people. In some cases, he chooses to do them anyway. He has, at times, chosen some incredibly shady things. And he does, it seems, care about his family - and not just his immediate family - to the point that I find it extremely unlikely he would be party to their murder. The argument that "Rudolf has done bad things, so he's likely to do a worse thing" is overly simplistic rubbish. That's not why most people commit murder.

And in fact, the reasons most people commit murder do indeed allow "normal" people to become killers. Most of the time a spouse kills their husband/wife, their neighbors and family are surprised they'd be capable of it. But that's how it works sometimes.

Also, any killing on Rokkenjima is impulsive unless it was significantly premeditated. The only evidence we have for anybody having any form of premeditation that might relate to a murder is Yasu. At least that we know of. The ep7 Tea Party essentially implies an "Alright, let's roll with this whole murder thing" attitude on Kyrie's part. So either she's impulse killing without adequately considering her chances of getting away with it (which is not in character) or she actually premeditated the entire thing (which is not in evidence).

Jan-Poo

2012-05-29, 16:08

You're making a common mistake that I think a lot of people make, which is that a person who does not respect the law is therefore a "bad person" who has fundamental moral failings that will extend to any criminal activity.

Replace "will" with "may". We are talking about probabilities here, not certainties. It is not my point to advocate a certain inevitable correlation between lesser criminal activities and murder, but a higher probability for that to worse than for someone with a clear conscience.

In othe words, in which part the Battler culprit theory is in any way more probable than the Rudolf and Kyrie culprit theory?

And as for Rudolf being a "bad person" I don't think that I need to use any kind of correlation logic to reach that conclusion.

Unless you have a different definition of "bad person", what Rudolf did, qualifies him as a bad person by definition in my book.

The only thing I can agree with is that not all the "bad persons" can become murderers.
And as you say, being a bad person isn't a necessary requirement for someone to become a murder (albeit it's a lot rarer).

Also, any killing on Rokkenjima is impulsive unless it was significantly premeditated. The only evidence we have for anybody having any form of premeditation that might relate to a murder is Yasu. At least that we know of. The ep7 Tea Party essentially implies an "Alright, let's roll with this whole murder thing" attitude on Kyrie's part. So either she's impulse killing without adequately considering her chances of getting away with it (which is not in character) or she actually premeditated the entire thing (which is not in evidence).

The fact that Ange was left at home could be seen as an evidence of premeditation and it was in fact used as an argument supporting the Rudolf family culprit theory.

Renall

2012-05-29, 16:22

And as for Rudolf being a "bad person" I don't think that I need to use any kind of correlation logic to reach that conclusion.

Unless you have a different definition of "bad person", what Rudolf did qualify him as a bad person by definition in my book.Well, that's the philosophical quandary, isn't it? Is a person a "bad person" because they do things, because they have "bad" mental states, or are people only bad because of circumstance?

After all, Rudolf loves his family. And wants to save his company (and, one assumes, cares for his employees in some fashion). And even at his worst and least explicably moral action (the baby swap) he seems to have been motivated by his desire to be with Asumu.

What I'm saying here is that it's more complex than that and that I would argue most of the adults - except maybe Hideyoshi, but he wasn't really developed enough to say for certain - are in more or less the same boat as Rudolf circumstantially. The fact that he is a more overt criminal doesn't necessarily mean that, under the same circumstances as his siblings, he's more inclined to be the one to be accepting of a murderous plan. Indeed, his awareness of the difficulties and consequences of criminal activity could make him less inclined to think he could get away with such a drastic act. If he and Kyrie have half a brain between them, you'd think these supposed master criminals would know there's no way to get away with mass murder and secure all that secret gold without some very nosy police inquisition.

Basically, you can turn it around: If they're smart enough to swindle, they're too smart to kill. "Blaming Yasu" is a possibility, but even if they do that, it's not necessarily going to follow that they'll be able to access the gold afterward. So the whole thing could basically end up being pointless, and they'd be the ones most well-trained to realize that.The only thing I can agree with is that not all the "bad persons" can become murderers.
And as you say, being a bad person isn't a necessary requirement for someone to become a murder (albeit it's a lot rarer).Again, I'm not so sure of this. A person could be the biggest thief, mooch, and sleazebag you know and it doesn't mean he'd be more likely to kill than the ex-Boy Scout working man who's begun to suspect his wife of cheating on him. People are odd like that, and murder is odder.The fact that Ange was left at home could be seen as an evidence of premeditation and it was in fact used as an argument in the rudolf family culprit theory.On the other hand, it's also got a reasonable explanation. And Battler seemed to confirm it, and we at least presume Battler to not have been party to any premeditation to murder by his parents.

Besides, Rudolf and Kyrie are the only ones with a small child they can leave off the island. Rosa has to bring her daughter with her for lack of caretakers, Jessica lives there, and George and Battler are adults (and Battler was basically invited by his father). Ange happens to have a relative who can care for her and is circumstantially the only person both young enough that her parents can elect to leave her and capable of actually being left somewhere.

So you know, it could just be a coincidence! If Eva and Hideyoshi had a daughter younger than George, maybe she would've come and maybe she wouldn't have. If Rosa had a husband with a sister, maybe she'd have left Maria with her. I'm also honestly curious what difference it could've made to any premeditated murder ploy if Ange had come along. Were they worried about her snitching? Were they worried she'd see bad things? I don't see how her being there during the "unexplained massacre by that Yasu person" would've been any less traumatic than her parents coming home and being all "Welp, that was an interesting conference. Everybody but us got murdered, Ange!"

Jan-Poo

2012-05-29, 16:33

Well, that's the philosophical quandary, isn't it? Is a person a "bad person" because they do things, because they have "bad" mental states, or are people only bad because of circumstance?

After all, Rudolf loves his family. And wants to save his company (and, one assumes, cares for his employees in some fashion). And even at his worst and least explicably moral action (the baby swap) he seems to have been motivated by his desire to be with Asumu.

I guess that's the same issue of the "liar paradox".
If you assume that a liar is someone that will always and infallibly lie every thing he says, then you'll never find anyone that will match that definition.

For the same reason if you argue that Rudolf is not a bad person because he didn't hate the whole world, then I wonder who could you define as "bad person". Very few, I think. Not even Hitler would qualify.

If you ask me, if you consciously cause a relevant damage and suffering to another person for no other reason but to be happier yourself, you are a bad person.

So you know, it could just be a coincidence!

Oh it certainly could! But can we really expect something like an undeniable clue in Umineko? We have no choice but to use every element at our disposal no matter how weak it is. And as weak as this is, it is still more than absolutely nothing.

Renall

2012-05-29, 16:43

If you ask me, if you consciously cause a relevant damage and suffering to another person for no other reason but to be happier yourself, you are a bad person.1) We don't know for sure that was his only rationale. A person can commit crimes and intentionally harm others out of a misguided sense of altruism. You've also got your Robin Hoods and Noble Hedonists of the world who argue it's justifiable to hurt those more powerful or more wicked than they are for their own benefit or the benefit of the less fortunate.

2) Are you a "bad person" or a "person who does bad things?" Is there a distinction? Everybody acts in their own interest at times, sometimes aware that these things may be detrimental to others. At times, indeed, it's impossible not to act in a manner which does harm to others. However, the type and amount of harm we're willing to cause can vary greatly from person to person. A man who believes it acceptable to lie or steal from others (such as Rudolf) may not necessarily believe it acceptable to kill them. The reverse may well be true as well, nonsensical as it may initially seem; a man who murders his girlfriend's (allegedly) abusive ex-husband won't necessarily burglarize his house while he's over there killing him, because after all he's "not a thief."

Jan-Poo

2012-05-29, 17:02

1) We don't know for sure that was his only rationale.

That is the only rationale we can deduce without going on a tangent.

A person can commit crimes and intentionally harm others out of a misguided sense of altruism. You've also got your Robin Hoods and Noble Hedonists of the world who argue it's justifiable to hurt those more powerful or more wicked than they are for their own benefit or the benefit of the less fortunate.

In the case of Robin Hood he didn't rob to gain something for himself (at least not the robin hood of legends). And even then he was acting under the belief of doing something right, by rectifying a greater evil with another minor evil.
Rudolf didn't think he was doing something right, he knew he was doing something very bad to Kyrie.

2) Are you a "bad person" or a "person who does bad things?" Is there a distinction?

There is a distinction and that is why I specified "consciously" in my definition. If you do bad things conscious of doing bad things (to a certain degree) and yet you don't care, then you are a bad person.

Here I could imagine several cases where another person could do bad things but
not being conscious of them, or being forced to do them by an external facor, or out of a mental disorder. In those case there is isn't a conscious and free will. But neither of them apply in Rudolf's case as far as we know.

Everybody acts in their own interest at times, sometimes aware that these things may be detrimental to others. At times, indeed, it's impossible not to act in a manner which does harm to others. However, the type and amount of harm we're willing to cause can vary greatly from person to person.

And there are various degree of wickedness proportional to that.
But as with every general definition where there isn't an all or nothing situation but a wide spectrum, there is also a general accepted (and yet fuzzy) treshold.

How much freedom one must have to be considered free, for example?

Depending on how radical you are you can say that everyone is free or that everyone is prisoner. And indeed there have been philosophical currents that stated both. But there is in our society a general conceptual amount of freedom that makes us say that one person is free or not.

The same thing could be said for bad and good person. Albeit where exactly the treshold lies is not well defined.

A man who believes it acceptable to lie or steal from others (such as Rudolf) may not necessarily believe it acceptable to kill them. The reverse may well be true as well, nonsensical as it may initially seem; a man who murders his girlfriend's (allegedly) abusive ex-husband won't necessarily burglarize his house while he's over there killing him, because after all he's "not a thief."

Possible, but how much probable this is? Exceptions and exceptional cases always exist.
Are you confident enough to deny that there is a correlation between higher level of criminality and higher number of murders?

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-29, 20:35

That's what I like to think, but it's implied this isn't the case.

In what way? Shame and guilt at her own part in 0CT would explain Eva's silence, as well as covering up Rudolph and Kyrie if she saw them shooting someone whatever the reason. Similarly, the pained reaction to Eva's diary would be explained by, well, just about any theory. Is there any plausible theory that would not cause Ange to angst out?

and uh. This is Ryukishi here. He wrote Higanbana.

I'm really not trusting the guy who labels a child-rapist murderer as a "sympathetic protagonist" to be able to venerate an entire cast of characters as "innocent."

I haven't read that one yet, so this is shakier than most blues, but...

Maybe Higanbana is also a game with mystery elements and that character isn't guilty of the things you think he is.

But I really can't participate in that discussion effectively since I haven't read Higanbana and don't want spoilers.

Kealym

2012-05-29, 21:11

...when did Rudolf kidnap someone?

GoldenLand

2012-05-29, 21:59

Presumably, Jan-Poo is talking about Rudolf taking Battler away from Kyrie. People can kidnap their own children from the other parent, so it works.

LyricalAura

2012-05-30, 02:06

and uh. This is Ryukishi here. He wrote Higanbana.

I'm really not trusting the guy who labels a child-rapist murderer as a "sympathetic protagonist" to be able to venerate an entire cast of characters as "innocent."

Uh. Assuming there aren't additional child-rapist murderers later in the novel that I haven't gotten to yet,

the child-rapist murderer was portrayed as a sick bastard with no redeeming qualities who deserved what he got, which was being killed and eaten by his victim after having his entire skeleton crushed one bone at a time. And he wasn't the protagonist.

AuraTwilight

2012-05-30, 02:31

In what way? Shame and guilt at her own part in 0CT would explain Eva's silence, as well as covering up Rudolph and Kyrie if she saw them shooting someone whatever the reason. Similarly, the pained reaction to Eva's diary would be explained by, well, just about any theory. Is there any plausible theory that would not cause Ange to angst out?

Because if there's no criminal, then why is the truth being hushed up by ANYONE? There is no reason not to let the truth of Rokkenjima out into the open unless it's to defend a guilty party. Otherwise you are damning all these innocent people to be treated as potential criminals for the rest of history.

Uh. Assuming there aren't additional child-rapist murderers later in the novel that I haven't gotten to yet,

He's described as the protagonist in the sense that the story follows his point of view as a central character, and it's not entirely true that he had no redeeming qualities, because he was initially a wide-eyed idealist who got corrupted by the stress of his occupation and snapped.

Also, further Higanbana protagonists includes a guy that kills rabbits for fun.

My complaint is that Higanbana has basically no sympathetic characters whatsoever, but we're still meant to root for some of them. Given Higurashi's "help your friends get away with murder", and the whole issue with Umineko's ending, I submit that Ryukishi's moral compass is severely fucked three ways from Friday.

battle22

2012-05-30, 02:47

Wow really? I thought Higanbana was bad but THIS BAD? Senseless gore? Nooooo :( :( :( . I remember how i hated the Satoko torture scene in Higurashi. :( . I have high hopes for Rose guns days tho xD.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-30, 05:06

He's described as the protagonist in the sense that the story follows his point of view as a central character, and it's not entirely true that he had no redeeming qualities, because he was initially a wide-eyed idealist who got corrupted by the stress of his occupation and snapped.

Also, further Higanbana protagonists includes a guy that kills rabbits for fun.

I've read only a portion of the manga for this one, but from what I've seen so far, he's portrayed as a total dick (except for the chapter which focuses on an inner monologue of his, which seemed very wierd, but I guess it was his own point of view so it was meant to be subjective). Plus, I always had the impression we were meant to 'root' for Marie.

I guess I won't know until the VN is translated, so I refrain from taking a stance for now.

My complaint is that Higanbana has basically no sympathetic characters whatsoever, but we're still meant to root for some of them. Given Higurashi's "help your friends get away with murder", and the whole issue with Umineko's ending, I submit that Ryukishi's moral compass is severely fucked three ways from Friday.

Don't forget Keichi shooting innocent kids with no reason at all (today, six years after Higurashi's ending, still trying to find at least one pattern of logic in his actions).

I can sort of understand where he was going with Umineko's ending, but other than that, he seems to have some wierd moral ideals, truth be told.

I remember how i hated the Satoko torture scene in Higurashi. :( .

Oh, this brings back so many memories (little bitch finally got what she deserved).

battle22

2012-05-30, 06:15

"Oh, this brings back so many memories (little bitch finally got what she deserved). "
Even if you hate Satoko, it's hard to watch or read when 9 year old gets stabed to death.XD

CrimsonMoonMist

2012-05-30, 06:21

Don't forget Keichi shooting innocent kids with no reason at all (today, six years after Higurashi's ending, still trying to find at least one pattern of logic in his actions).
Wasn't that just him getting off on the thrill of doing something bad for once backed by the pent up frustration he felt towards his current lifeless lifestyle?
Something like him unconsciously feeling like he was rebelling against his current life by doing it?
I do concur that doing something childish like that at his age is odd.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-05-30, 07:26

I think this discussion belongs on the other WTC board...

But think about it this way:

Higurashi was about using the power of friendship and forgiveness to overcome hardships and to create a miracle. Keiichi was messed up, but it's about his friends being able to work past that and him atoning for it.

Umineko though, I'm not quite sure what the moral was. I guess it's about keeping hope in your heart that a miracle will occur.

I haven't read much of Higanbana. I don't remember Ryukishi ever said he was trying to make teacher a sympathetic villain. I couldn't sympathize with him at all in the manga. Higanbana's message is supposed to be anti-bullying, but I haven't read past the first mesomeso-san arc to see how he handles it.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-30, 07:50

"Oh, this brings back so many memories (little bitch finally got what she deserved). "
Even if you hate Satoko, it's hard to watch or read when 9 year old gets stabed to death.XD

Well, I guess the point here would be that exactly this kind of emotion was part of Higurashi's main appeal. The fear, the mystery, (the lolis!) and the messed up stuff that were in there as much as you procceeded in the story. Generally, it was a horror story, wrapped in the cover of a happy-go-lucky one. It's unpleasant, that's what makes it delightful to read.

And Satoko totally deserved it (always been my least favorite Higurashi character).

Wasn't that just him getting off on the thrill of doing something bad for once backed by the pent up frustration he felt towards his current lifeless lifestyle?
Something like him unconsciously feeling like he was rebelling against his current life by doing it?
I do concur that doing something childish like that at his age is odd.

Well it wasn't meant to be normal, that much is certain.
Although I do understand the psychology that's used to justify it, and it does make SOME sense, it's just a huge stretch that Keichi would repeatedly take his frustration out on innocent kids just by reading a sign that says 'don't shoot at people'. I always found that development way too sudden, that's all.

I think this discussion belongs on the other WTC board...

But think about it this way:

Higurashi was about using the power of friendship and forgiveness to overcome hardships and to create a miracle. Keiichi was messed up, but it's about his friends being able to work past that and him atoning for it.

All of us understand that much. My point was that the 'messed up' part was weak. Never really 'justified' his actions. For example, Rena murdering Teppei and Ritsuko can be 'justified' (not excused, but clearly she had a reason for doing it).

And now perhaps we should shut up because we're spamming this thread way too much....:heh:

Renall

2012-05-30, 08:23

Possible, but how much probable this is? Exceptions and exceptional cases always exist.
Are you confident enough to deny that there is a correlation between higher level of criminality and higher number of murders?Most serial killers are not career criminals (it's part of the reason they get away with it for so long). Most mass murderers kill in a single event, but they rarely premeditate it. Most premeditated killers only want to kill one specific person, and take steps to commit the crime when no one but that person will be present.

There is of course a correlation between certain violent felonies and the probability that a murder will be committed by said violent felon in the course of such a felony; after all, people who stick up convenience stores have a much higher chance of eventually shooting someone in the process than a criminal who only tries to break into unoccupied houses. But the "trends" of murder can surprise you. Most deliberately premeditated and covered up murders are done by family members (usually spouses). Most crimes of passion are between people with preexisting relationships (family, friends). Spree killings are unfathomably rare.

If one person really did kill everyone else sans Battler and Eva (which isn't necessarily the only explanation if a murder did occur), you're talking about an incredibly unusual incident and I don't think even Rudolf and Kyrie's normal mindset would consider it a normal or even acceptable course action.

Plus Ryukishi himself seems to believe Yasu is a character with at least the potential for a murderous mindset, yet as far as we know she's never committed any other crimes nor ever wanted to. So at the very least, the culprit Ryukishi wants to present to us is somebody who, so far as we know, isn't a criminal in action or mindset. If he believes she's capable of killing (even if she didn't!), then it doesn't seem like he expects us to look at someone's past dealings as an indicator that they'd commit mass murder.

My point is merely that I don't buy for a second that evidence of criminal activity in the past is a correlating factor to future criminal activity of an entirely different type and scale. "Rudolf and Kyrie have committed some crimes for money, therefore they might commit any crime for money" just doesn't follow. Certainly killing for money could be a motive for them, as it could for any of the parents, but I don't believe their prior history makes them more likely candidates.

Plus wouldn't that violate Van Dine? Yes, yes, I know, it's not something Ryukishi cares about, but still, the gangster mom and swindler dad kill everybody for cash? It's so... expected.

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-30, 08:43

Because if there's no criminal, then why is the truth being hushed up by ANYONE? There is no reason not to let the truth of Rokkenjima out into the open unless it's to defend a guilty party. Otherwise you are damning all these innocent people to be treated as potential criminals for the rest of history.

Eva was already suspicious as the sole survivor. If she came out and said 'yeah, I killed Kyrie and Rudolph, but it was self defense because everyone was terrified. That first shot of mine that killed Natsuhi was a complete accident!' no one would believe it and her enemies would use that as a justification to attack her, smear her name even more, and destroy her company.

Eva's a smart one. In the heat of the moment she probably took Kyrie's 'songs of a woman's freedom' and such at face value and was appropriately horrified, but after thinking about it (and you know something traumatizing like the Rokkenjima incident would replay itself over and over in her head) she might have started to suspect that Kyrie was playing the demon for Ange's sake. It's possible Eva started to do the same, deliberately playing the demon for Ange.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-30, 10:29

Most serial killers are not career criminals (it's part of the reason they get away with it for so long). Most mass murderers kill in a single event, but they rarely premeditate it. Most premeditated killers only want to kill one specific person, and take steps to commit the crime when no one but that person will be present.

There is of course a correlation between certain violent felonies and the probability that a murder will be committed by said violent felon in the course of such a felony; after all, people who stick up convenience stores have a much higher chance of eventually shooting someone in the process than a criminal who only tries to break into unoccupied houses. But the "trends" of murder can surprise you. Most deliberately premeditated and covered up murders are done by family members (usually spouses). Most crimes of passion are between people with preexisting relationships (family, friends). Spree killings are unfathomably rare.

If one person really did kill everyone else sans Battler and Eva (which isn't necessarily the only explanation if a murder did occur), you're talking about an incredibly unusual incident and I don't think even Rudolf and Kyrie's normal mindset would consider it a normal or even acceptable course action.

Plus Ryukishi himself seems to believe Yasu is a character with at least the potential for a murderous mindset, yet as far as we know she's never committed any other crimes nor ever wanted to. So at the very least, the culprit Ryukishi wants to present to us is somebody who, so far as we know, isn't a criminal in action or mindset. If he believes she's capable of killing (even if she didn't!), then it doesn't seem like he expects us to look at someone's past dealings as an indicator that they'd commit mass murder.

My point is merely that I don't buy for a second that evidence of criminal activity in the past is a correlating factor to future criminal activity of an entirely different type and scale. "Rudolf and Kyrie have committed some crimes for money, therefore they might commit any crime for money" just doesn't follow. Certainly killing for money could be a motive for them, as it could for any of the parents, but I don't believe their prior history makes them more likely candidates.

Plus wouldn't that violate Van Dine? Yes, yes, I know, it's not something Ryukishi cares about, but still, the gangster mom and swindler dad kill everybody for cash? It's so... expected.

where is the line that separates the "too obvious" from the "adequately hinted"?
Does our experience with Umineko tell us that Ryuukishi will always go with the "unexpected" and never with the "too obvious"? And "too obvious" or "unexpected" from whose perspective?

Anyway it's not like I disagree with what you said, but that works in general for a whole population not so much in a situation where we know that someone committed a crime.

And you seem to be so much bent on the "impulse" situation, but I don't think real esperience really supports a massacre of that extent. The killing spree cases were always premeditated to a certain extent, those that are truly committed by impulse do not go far, simply because an unstable person who acts on impulse and without a clear plan lacks the determination and the means to maintain a murderous spree for a long time.

Of course the impulse scenario could work if the killer simply pushed a button and the bomb exploded. But the evidence of Battler and Eva and their shared unwillingness to talk and remember about what happened suggests something more happened there.

So, Rosa suddenly went crazy and killed everyone? George suddenly went crazy and killed everyone?
I can believe it only in so far they kill a few persons they hated in a fit of rage. Not the whole family. In the end in the most cases when someone kills relatives out of rage, he ends up killing himself or attempt suicide.

George could work better as a cold blooded murderer with a premeditated plan, if you ask me. The hints about him as the culprit points to that direction not to the scenario of an unstable psycho.

And about Battler we have absolutely nothing that wouldn't also work for Rudolf and Kyrie. Including Black Battler from OMK since one of his moves include summoning killer Kyrie and killer Rudolf.

So in the end I really see no reason to remove Kyrie and Rudolf from the most probable culprit list except for the fact they were blatantly shown to us as such. Which... should really make you think the opposite if you weren't so stuck with the idea that Ryuukishi wouldn't shove in your face the truth (and in my opinion he did that fairly often).

Ah and for the same reason, I don't think it is such a good idea to remove Yasu either. But I don't think she's the main culprit for reasons like the ring (which suggest the riddle was solved and she lost her gamble), Eva's unwillingness to speak, and Ange's reaction after reading Eva's diary.

AuraTwilight

2012-05-30, 12:05

Eva was already suspicious as the sole survivor. If she came out and said 'yeah, I killed Kyrie and Rudolph, but it was self defense because everyone was terrified. That first shot of mine that killed Natsuhi was a complete accident!' no one would believe it and her enemies would use that as a justification to attack her, smear her name even more, and destroy her company.

That's bullshit. Coming forward with ANYTHING is better than keeping her mouth shut for over a decade. If she published her story, it could atleast be fact-checked to some degree.

Besides, as already discussed, Rudolf/Kyrie theory is probably a Red Herring. Frankly, I suspect she's keeping her mouth shut for George or something.

Eva's a smart one. In the heat of the moment she probably took Kyrie's 'songs of a woman's freedom' and such at face value and was appropriately horrified, but after thinking about it (and you know something traumatizing like the Rokkenjima incident would replay itself over and over in her head) she might have started to suspect that Kyrie was playing the demon for Ange's sake. It's possible Eva started to do the same, deliberately playing the demon for Ange.

Why? It's not like she was there, or that Kyrie and Eva had any intentions of letting her find out anyway.

I think you're putting way too much stock in a sequence of events that even Bern didn't try to defend for more than a few minutes.

So in the end I really see no reason to remove Kyrie and Rudolf from the most probable culprit list except for the fact they were blatantly shown to us as such. Which... should really make you think the opposite if you weren't so stuck with the idea that Ryuukishi wouldn't shove in your face the truth (and in my opinion he did that fairly often).

To be entirely fair, even if Rudolf and Kyrie were the culprits, EP7 Tea Party just isn't the way it went down whatsoever; it just can't be, it's too riddled with plot holes.

And if we're going to go that far, then why weren't we shown something more accurate? Bern herself admits she just showed the worst possibility she could dig up to fuck with Ange's emotions. It's not like it's a theory she stuck by.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-30, 13:21

To be entirely fair, even if Rudolf and Kyrie were the culprits, EP7 Tea Party just isn't the way it went down whatsoever; it just can't be, it's too riddled with plot holes.

Oh well, you should know already that you find me in complete agreement with that.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-30, 16:48

To be entirely fair, even if Rudolf and Kyrie were the culprits, EP7 Tea Party just isn't the way it went down whatsoever; it just can't be, it's too riddled with plot holes.

And if we're going to go that far, then why weren't we shown something more accurate? Bern herself admits she just showed the worst possibility she could dig up to fuck with Ange's emotions. It's not like it's a theory she stuck by.

And it's almost as if it's not even trying to trick us. First of all, it's stupid, second, it's waaaay too bleak and has Bern written all over it, and Bern never gets to finish her sentece This is truth-(dot, dot, dot).

EP7 left me with a bad after-taste just because of this tea party. It would be interesting if Ryukishi tried to trick us with a false answer for a while, but he should have at least tried.

jjblue1

2012-05-30, 17:47

Forgive me, but none of those sound like satisfying whydunnit for the Battler culprit theory to me. At any rate if you are among those who think Yasu's motive was weak, well then there's even more weakness in those.

Since saying that Battler still holds a grudge against Rudolf and he even extended it to unrelated parties is already completely diferrent from anything we have been told about Battler, you might as well make a further step and say he's a total psycho like Black Battler in OMK.... and then he doesn't even need a reason.

Well, as Battler isn't the culprit he, of course, didn't hold a grudge against anyone nor plan to kill someone. I didn't intend for my theory to be the solution as I know it's not, just a possibile solution before we were to read EP 5-8.
Whatever culprit theory we're going to accept will involve figuring out things that weren't said in a crystal clear way.
In Ep 1-4 Shannon, for example, is never described as bitter or resentful toward Battler, she seems not to mind the fact he never came back to get her and be happily in love with George.

The point it there was the possibility Battler hadn't forgiven Rudolf and viewed him as directly connected to his mother's death and, by default, he could apply it to everyone in the Ushiromiya family who likely supported Rudolf, that the Battler who looks like he had forgiven everyone was nothing more than a persona like Shannon is, a mask he put to fool everyone.

It's not unprecedented that, due to a wish of revenge or of 'justice' people would take upon themselves the task of killing the ones they deem at fault, especially when they believe human justice can't reach them, and even ruin all the ones that are connected to them.

It still would give him a personal motive while BB seems to kill people because 'he was drawn that way'.

And yes, I think that trying to avenge your mother's death is a 'more rational' motive than playing 'murder game' with your childhood crush because he might have forgotten about you.

They both involve a certain deal of insanity (we're talking of a mass murder here, I doubt it's possible to find a perfectly rational, logical reason to kill so many people among which a child of 8) but I find easier to 'justify' the first than the latter (I'll still send the culprit to jail though).

I guess it's a matter of personal tastes so there isn't much we can do to find a common view.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-30, 18:01

jjblue1

2012-05-30, 19:03

I think that "killing for love" is as "rational" as "killing for vengeance". The problem with Yasu's case is not the reason but how badly her reason matches with what she did.

In the case of the "culprit of meakashi" the reason behind all that was love and while it was misguided and crazy, what she did "made sense" to me, it followed a logic albeit distorted.

I agree.
I'm not ruling out 'killing for love' as a motive, it's just the way Umineko presents it that somehow... doesn't ring right for me.
It could be though that, differently from Meakashi, we're basically left figuring out how things went so I can't fill all the blanks with answers that 'sound good enough for me'.

In the case of Yasu I cannot understand it because first: she decided to kill the very person she loves, which is something I can only understand in cases such "if you cannot be mine, then you won't be anyone else's". But there was absolutely no reason for Yasu to kill Battler with love as her reason. Second: she killed persons that had absolutely nothing to do with it not even in her deluded mind (unlike the case of the culprit I mentioned above).

That too though for me there are other reasons for which for me somehow Yasu's actions aren't really 'rationals'.

For your proposed Battler culprit I have the exact same problem. He wants to avenge Asumu? That's a bit overboard but I can understand that. But why he had to wait the family conference for that so to involve people that have barely anything to do with it... doesn't make sense to me.

The whole theory was that he viewed them as 'accomplices'. In my post I didn't develop it very much as I don't think Battler is the real culprit and, as nothing is revealed about Asumu's death, Ryukishi intended for it not to be more than an incident with no real culprit (my BCT died around half of Ep 5).

Anyway the whole theory was more or less like this:
- Asumu dies in such a way her death can be blamed on Rudolf and Kyrie (be it because they pushed her to suicide or because they litterally killed her or because circumstances are such that Battler ends up thinking they did it)
- Rudolf and Kirye can't be punished by law (be it because there are no proofs or because they just created a setting that pushed Asumu to death but they didn't litterally push the trigger)
- The Ushiromiyas take Rudolf's side possibly going as far as doing something that might be vieed as 'covering up' for him.
- Asumu's parents, who takes into custody Battler, join into placing the blame on the Ushiromiya, so for 6 years Battler keeps on hearing 'your mother died due to your father and his blasted family'. When they die, it's possible to blame their death to the trauma of losing their daughter (for an old person a traumatic event can cause a worsening of his health conditions) and, as their daughter died due to the Ushiromiyas, well, by default they too died due to the Ushiromiya.

- Battler is left alone with his own pain for the loss of 3 people he held dear (his mother and his grandparents) in such a short time and goes into a mode similar to Ange toward Eva only he didn't think he can legally or publically place the blame on the Ushiromiyas so decides to solve matters by himself.

- Originally killing the cousins and the servants wasn't part of the plan, he just wanted to get the Ushiromiya. However he mistook the fact that the cousins tactfully avoided mentioning what had happened to 'the cousins also siding with the Ushiromiya'. Same goes with most of the servants.

- Shannon apparently forgetting about him to date George and Jessica supporting the thing might have worsened his perception of his cousins.

- Maria is a 'pity killing' as he believes he'll spare her from the pain of growing up without a mother.

- Gohda and Kanon weren't supposed to be killed as they weren't around when Asumu died. Likely they just went in the way.

Note that I don't believe Battler killed someone, this was just the theory I had at the time. There were hints Battler might have not be the person we believed him to be, there were hints that he took pretty badly his mother's death, that Rudolf wasn't badly in love with Asumu, that Kirye would have been willing to be involved in Asumu's death, that no one wants to bring the subject of his mother up or tried to contact him in those 6 years (and I'm not talking of the cousins but of the uncles and aunts who should/could have demanded to see their nephew, just to check if he was all right), that he actually had a crush on Shannon and I'll say that Asumu's death came unexpected as Kirye was all set to kill her when she died on her own before she could do something so it's not completely without basis.

It's likely wrong though as Umineko made more or less clear that Battler isn't a killer and completely ignores Asumu's death, apparently implying it wasn't important for the solution of the story.

Jan-Poo

2012-05-30, 19:30

Well apart from the fact this is a complete construction with no actual basis it raises a few sensible questions:

Let's even suppose that Battler had some sort of solid proof that rudolf and kyrie killed his mother, which is already difficult. (how could he know?)

1) Why would the rest of the family support Rudolf by becoming accomplice in that crime? What did they have to gain? None of the adults seem to particular like their siblings enough to get involved in that. Nobody even gives a rat ass about the family name ecept Natsuhi.

2) Even supposing they did for some reason, how could Battler also knew that the rest of the family covered Rudolf's and Kyrie's murder? That's not something that they would tell anyone. You need to imagine that someone inside the family acted as a mole, who would do that and why? If it isn't so, then Battler is completely paranoid.

3) The Shannon bit doesn't make much sense considering that Battler never contacted her for six years. If he blames her for that so much as wanting to kill her and the cousins, after he forgot he was supposed to meet her after one year (not six) then he's pretty much a crazy asshole.

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-30, 23:53

Here's my thinking. We know that Bern started saying 'It's the truth-' but got cut off before she could finish the sentence. She tells Ange it's the truth from a certain point of view in white in Ep 8. We also know that the truth of Eva's diary made Ange break down in tears just like she did in the theatre for the ep7 tea party.

I submit that the truth of Eva's diary is the Ep 7 tea party show.

Because it is Eva's diary, only the thoughts and actions of Eva are guaranteed with Red. Every scene that Eva isn't present for is a fantasy and can be ignored from the truth as surely as if the Seven Sisters of Purgatory were flying around. Every statement of what other people are thinking during Eva's conversations with them is Eva's opinion, not truth.

Therefore it is possible for Eva to have made mistakes or misinterpreted the things before her eyes.

For example, Eva believes Kyrie missed from point blank range, but it is also possible that Kyrie's gun was loaded with blanks for Beatrice's game, and that's why Eva was uninjured.

Eva believes that Kyrie seriously despised Ange and thought of her own child as furniture to tie her to Rudolph. However, it is also possible that Kyrie realized her gun was carrying blanks based on Eva's survival and chose to use her last conversation to manipulate Eva into caring for Ange in a brilliant final move of chessboard thinking.

And as the topper, The only one of the children confirmed killed before the explosion is George since Eva saw the body. Rudolph and Kyrie had no motive to kill the rest but George might have gone for revenge if he figured out his parents were killed. The other kids were still alive and well in the mansion and guest house when the bomb exploded. Eva left them to die because she thought they were already dead. A senseless tragedy that could have been averted if Eva was a bit more mystery-minded.

But I'm sure that this sort of thinking has been brought up and shot down before, right?

AuraTwilight

2012-05-31, 01:55

And it's almost as if it's not even trying to trick us. First of all, it's stupid, second, it's waaaay too bleak and has Bern written all over it, and Bern never gets to finish her sentece This is truth-(dot, dot, dot).

EP7 left me with a bad after-taste just because of this tea party. It would be interesting if Ryukishi tried to trick us with a false answer for a while, but he should have at least tried.

He has implied in one of his interviews that Yasu is the "false answer" he's tricking us with.

It's certainly the most logical option.

But I'm sure that this sort of thinking has been brought up and shot down before, right?

It has. For one thing, Eva's Diary contains The One Truth, and when Ange read it, she reacted strongly and differently from the EP7 Tea Party, and yet was able to cope with the answer, which she didn't seem to be able to do with the truth of the EP7 Tea Party whatsoever.

Secondly, the glimpses we get of the Diary (the montage of screenshots that go by) don't match up to it. Especially not if you include the dummied out ones. I think Janpoo posted them somewhere.

Drifloon

2012-05-31, 02:07

I'd be interested in seeing those.

Golden Bug-Hunter

2012-05-31, 04:58

It has. For one thing, Eva's Diary contains The One Truth, and when Ange read it, she reacted strongly and differently from the EP7 Tea Party, and yet was able to cope with the answer, which she didn't seem to be able to do with the truth of the EP7 Tea Party whatsoever.

Secondly, the glimpses we get of the Diary (the montage of screenshots that go by) don't match up to it. Especially not if you include the dummied out ones. I think Janpoo posted them somewhere.

I don't think the reactions were that different. There's an initial bit of denial, then shock and horror. Then Ange is kicked out of the theatre and/or tries base jumping without a parachute.

But I don't recall any glimpses at all of the diary except for people standing around in the house and landscape shots, so maybe I'm misremembering.

Klashikari

2012-05-31, 05:04

There is one thing that you should factor in this mess: if we assume the truth Ange has seen in Eva's diary is really Episode 7 and/or Bernkastel's board in Episode 8, Ange's reactions in the golden land make even -less- sense then, if we follow the Rudolf and Kyrie culprit theory.
She could reunite with Eva, yet, she has -no- problem with Kyrie and Rudolf. No matter how she loves both of them, if both were really the culprits, there wouldn't be no way for her to act in such fashion.

While Ange did say she would rather deny it and accept the truth she has made herself when she read it, when she was salvaged by Battler & co, she ultimately "accepted" it when Battler mentions Ange did see the truth after all.
I personally stick with the accident / snowball effect murders, which actually fits Ange's horror: how meaningless such deaths can be? How can someone cope the death of people dear to her, just "because of that"?
In a mystery genre story, readers generally want an interesting motive along with the MO, in order to appreciate the "antagonist". But from a RL/victim family perspective, you bet that if they died for nothing, it is all worse than simply "dead because of a scheme/hatred/love etc".

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-31, 05:12

He has implied in one of his interviews that Yasu is the "false answer" he's tricking us with.

It's certainly the most logical option.

Except that would make Ryukishi a total ass and Umineko a big pile of crap. Trying to trick your readers with a false answer is one thing, but never actually disproving it and showing the correct one even after the story is over is just....stupid?

The Rudolf and Kyrie culprits actually did not disprove the Yasu theory, it just shows one of the possible results of the 'roulette's spin', so it's different. But let's say Ryukishi releases EP9, let's say, which says 'you know what? Yasu isn't the culprit, Shannon and Kanon are different people and everything can be explain with the Purupurupikoman thoery! Gotcha! Suckers!'. That would render everything in Umineko Chiru and just a stupid farce (meaning that the man spent, how much, two years of his life writing bullcrap to mock his readers).

After all, there were hints about Yasu since EP1. Though I do not disagree that it is possible to construct a theory with another culprit that doesn't contradict any of the reds (Ryukishi has confirmed that himself), that doesn't mean your answer is the correct one, because the true one has already been confirmed and it's not that. To claim that Ryukishi is lying so that you can be right (see:KnownNoMore) seems ridiculous to me. What's the point?

Could you please post a link to that interview, or just the quote implying that?

Klashikari

2012-05-31, 05:36

Just to add some food for thought: Ryukishi again defined his stance about the ending of Umineko during the Epitanime.

Of course, there -is- a single truth, which is right in his head, as he has created the story. Some answers found in japanese bulletin boards are correct, but he isn't going to confirm any of them.
However, he made the story so that every reader would be able to construct their own truth as he believes it is part of the fun (and it does fit one of the interviews that he would like those who are close to the truth to feel rewarded/proud of their efforts when details are disclosed).
He ultimately stated that there are as much truths as people present in the conference room (which was well beyond 50).

He also made a private statement to me that is quite important: He certainly don't expect anyone to have a perfect 100% truth (as some details, such like Yasu gender is left for debate for example), but should someone is confident that their truth is 99% correct, so be it, which is exactly what he hopes them to feel like.
Which means Ryukishi made the gamble to trust his readers about their own take about the truth.

So far, I really don't remember "any" disproving element in any of the interview, aside of indicating there are some red herring points, obviously.

Renall

2012-05-31, 09:24

A truth you supposedly have locked up in your head is exactly as worthwhile to talk to your audience about as no truth at all. They're exactly the same thing.

I'm also a bit curious how he expects anyone to be confident that their truth is 99% correct when they have no way to ever know that. So the answer is, as he suggested, to delude myself into believing I'm right and be happy with that?

What a crock of hockey pucks.

Klashikari

2012-05-31, 09:31

If there wasn't any truth at all, then, basically "any truth" would work, which is of course not applicable considering a chunk of them are not permissible after discussions and facts being picked left and right. It renders the concept of the story completely moot.

Furthermore, few instances and facts do confirm things that can basically solidify one's theory. That's just like how some people did find the "Taiwan theory" for the epitapth during episode 3-4 period and still believe firmly so until episode 7 basically nod at them.

I frankly don't think you need a spelled out answer to feel what you have in mind is correct and possibly applicable or not. If the basis of your truth is solid and conceptualized correctly, I don't even think you need the confirmation afterwards, if everything has been covered in your mind.

If you have to delude yourself to believe you are right with your theory, that's a complete different matter.
Oh and before some people want to pick on that: I sincerely don't think Umineko is a literature masterpiece, nor void of flaws whatsoever. However, I can relate to Ryukishi's attempt in delivering the tale that can be interpretated in different fashions, and let it be.
I rather enjoyed how the cat box was exposed and how it was played left and right by the readers and characters alike, and even if I'm not fully sure of the state of the cat in there, I'm plenty satisfied.

Renall

2012-05-31, 09:45

I don't agree with the notion of presenting something as an exercise toward discovering the author's truth and then yanking the rug out and going "Surprise! I'm cool with whatever."

I'm not attacking you on this, I'm just saying the things he says are kind of not working for me.

theacefrehley

2012-05-31, 10:28

Except that would make Ryukishi a total ass and Umineko a big pile of crap. Trying to trick your readers with a false answer is one thing, but never actually disproving it and showing the correct one even after the story is over is just....stupid?

The Rudolf and Kyrie culprits actually did not disprove the Yasu theory, it just shows one of the possible results of the 'roulette's spin', so it's different. But let's say Ryukishi releases EP9, let's say, which says 'you know what? Yasu isn't the culprit, Shannon and Kanon are different people and everything can be explain with the Purupurupikoman thoery! Gotcha! Suckers!'. That would render everything in Umineko Chiru and just a stupid farce (meaning that the man spent, how much, two years of his life writing bullcrap to mock his readers).

After all, there were hints about Yasu since EP1. Though I do not disagree that it is possible to construct a theory with another culprit that doesn't contradict any of the reds (Ryukishi has confirmed that himself), that doesn't mean your answer is the correct one, because the true one has already been confirmed and it's not that. To claim that Ryukishi is lying so that you can be right (see:KnownNoMore) seems ridiculous to me. What's the point?

Could you please post a link to that interview, or just the quote implying that?
I think you're kind of mistaking forgeries for rokkenjima prime
I guess most people agree yasu is the culprit in the forgeries (see our confessions)

AuraTwilight

2012-05-31, 15:23

While Ange did say she would rather deny it and accept the truth she has made herself when she read it, when she was salvaged by Battler & co, she ultimately "accepted" it when Battler mentions Ange did see the truth after all.
I personally stick with the accident / snowball effect murders, which actually fits Ange's horror: how meaningless such deaths can be? How can someone cope the death of people dear to her, just "because of that"?
In a mystery genre story, readers generally want an interesting motive along with the MO, in order to appreciate the "antagonist". But from a RL/victim family perspective, you bet that if they died for nothing, it is all worse than simply "dead because of a scheme/hatred/love etc".

My thoughts exactly.

That or George Theory.

Except that would make Ryukishi a total ass and Umineko a big pile of crap.

Which Renall and I have been more or less saying for over a year.

If there wasn't any truth at all, then, basically "any truth" would work, which is of course not applicable considering a chunk of them are not permissible after discussions and facts being picked left and right. It renders the concept of the story completely moot.

You can say "X and Y and Z are not true" without ever deciding on a single truth, Klash.

Renall

2012-05-31, 15:55

You can say "X and Y and Z are not true" without ever deciding on a single truth, Klash.My problem exactly.

Philosophically, "the truth no one knows" and "no truth" are identical. The mere fact that information exists doesn't prove that a truth does exist. Ryukishi is free (at this point and at any point during Umineko's run) to eliminate possibilities through exclusion, but at no point does this demonstrate that a single truth exists in his mind. It's equally possible that he's making it up as he goes along and fact-checking himself before announcing anything to avoid contradictions.

Does that mean I think that's what he's doing? I have no idea. I believe it incumbent upon him to tell us his thoughts in full at some point, as if he never does then the statements "there is a truth but no one will ever know it" and "there is no truth" are essentially leading to the same end: No one will ever know the totality of Ryukishi's own thoughts on the matter, if those thoughts exist.

It's a situation where the longer it goes on, the more I suspect he is bluffing. If he has anything in his hand, he can lay the cards out; they may or may not be a great hand, but it is what it is. I don't think it would significantly impact my thoughts on the work as a whole, but it would be very interesting to see. If, on the other hand, all the cards are blank, I'd be pretty ticked off.

"Your truth is valid if you're comfortable with it" sounds like the words of somebody who at best has a bad hand. But I'd rather know he had a bad hand than never see his cards at all. Flipping it around, if I were him I wouldn't want anybody to know if I was ad-libbing, but I might also not want to lay it out there if I wasn't sure it'd be well-received. So either way he'd be playing it close to his chest.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-05-31, 16:36

I frankly don't think you need a spelled out answer to feel what you have in mind is correct and possibly applicable or not. If the basis of your truth is solid and conceptualized correctly, I don't even think you need the confirmation afterwards, if everything has been covered in your mind.

If you have to delude yourself to believe you are right with your theory, that's a complete different matter.
Oh and before some people want to pick on that: I sincerely don't think Umineko is a literature masterpiece, nor void of flaws whatsoever. However, I can relate to Ryukishi's attempt in delivering the tale that can be interpretated in different fashions, and let it be.
I rather enjoyed how the cat box was exposed and how it was played left and right by the readers and characters alike, and even if I'm not fully sure of the state of the cat in there, I'm plenty satisfied.

My thoughts exactly. I guess most people's complaint come from their firm belief that one truth MUST absolutely exist no matter what.

I don't agree with the notion of presenting something as an exercise toward discovering the author's truth and then yanking the rug out and going "Surprise! I'm cool with whatever."

Discovering the author's truth was a different thing than discovering Prime. An answer was given in the end about the things we were challenged to discover. The concept of hiding the truth by EP8 seemed a wierd turn to me at first, since there's no point in hiding a truth that has already been exposed, but as it appears they are completely different things.

I think you're kind of mistaking forgeries for rokkenjima prime

No, I am not mistaking anything, as I stated above.

I guess most people agree yasu is the culprit in the forgeries (see our confessions)

And why shouldn't they? Personally, I came up with that answer, it didn't seem to contradict any facts in the story, on the opposite, it was persistently hinted at, then was sort of confirmed by EP6 and then 'clearly' spelled out at EP7. I am speaking of myself here, but since that was the answer we were given, why shouldn't we believe it? Is Ryukishi apparently such a loser that would spend four years of his life working his ass off just to trick all the people stupid enough to read his work? I most certainly wouldn't like to think so. The very idea of this is stupid to begin with.

And even if he was, you'd think that by the end of it he'd reveal the deception. Otherwise, I guess right now he's sitting in front of his screen with his fingers shaping a pyramid of evil contemplation, laughing satanically to himself.

Which Renall and I have been more or less saying for over a year.

Yeah, except that's your personal opinion. I didn't think it was crap. In fact I really enjoyed Umineko and was satisfied with its ending. Though I do understand the problem you had with it and find it reasonable, it doesn't mean everyone else had it too.

Kealym

2012-05-31, 18:10

Philosophically, "the truth no one knows" and "no truth" are identical. The mere fact that information exists doesn't prove that a truth does exist. Ryukishi is free (at this point and at any point during Umineko's run) to eliminate possibilities through exclusion, but at no point does this demonstrate that a single truth exists in his mind.

Oh man, I have really been wanting an extra TIP or something, with a mantra of exclusionary red truths about things.

Klashikari

2012-05-31, 18:55

You can say "X and Y and Z are not true" without ever deciding on a single truth, Klash.Except, the story has elements that confirm points left and right that can be used as a frame for theories. It isn't like every parts of the equations are unknown.
Philosophically, "the truth no one knows" and "no truth" are identical. The mere fact that information exists doesn't prove that a truth does exist.There are pieces of information literally allow or deny theories at this point. The tangent here is how some pieces of information can be used in some theories or not.
In practice, and not in a philosophical sense, there is no such thing as "no truth" unless you don't think at all. And really, not knowing the one truth doesn't stop you to find it yourself. Declaring that you "can't find the truth because you have nothing that can confirm it" is as good as inspectors being unable to pin the culprit because they have only few evidences, but not the said guy confessing it. Overexaggeration aside, the truth itself is inherently what you make it be with the information at your disposal, and not having the "word of god" proving it would make a lot of things "not truth" despite they are from people perception.
It's a situation where the longer it goes on, the more I suspect he is bluffing. If he has anything in his hand, he can lay the cards out; they may or may not be a great hand, but it is what it is. I don't think it would significantly impact my thoughts on the work as a whole, but it would be very interesting to see. If, on the other hand, all the cards are blank, I'd be pretty ticked off.The true bluff would be at this point not even bother with the second half, Chiru. Frankly, Chiru has nudged so many points in term of concepts and progress in term of interpretation and meta fiction that it is absolutely meaningless to bring them up if nothing was planned beforehand.
The way he presented his previous "mystery" works do prove that he isn't exactly afraid of revealing the core of what he has in mind, however weak it may be (In Higurashi case, the hinamizawa syndrome does involve a huge suspension of disbelief, as well as few things with the Yamainu etc. As for Ookamikakushi... well, you get the idea).

The way he presented elements and concepts in Umineko are consistent to the narrative and how he wanted to wrap the story so far.

"Your truth is valid if you're comfortable with it" sounds like the words of somebody who at best has a bad hand. But I'd rather know he had a bad hand than never see his cards at all. Flipping it around, if I were him I wouldn't want anybody to know if I was ad-libbing, but I might also not want to lay it out there if I wasn't sure it'd be well-received. So either way he'd be playing it close to his chest.You start the whole premise of his decision with the following idea that he is doing it on purpose because he is just chickening out.
That being said, he is actually gambling and risking even more than if he was actually revealing his hand.
Really, not only he had to spell things for players earlier than supposed to be (Virgilia and Ronove's appearances being a literal plot device in ep3), he also went as far as demonstrating few behaviors he had expected that would happen with his story in ep8 (goats), yet went head on with.
The result? Some people reacted against it on the very first degree, and declared themselves "offended to be called a goat", despite it is clearly an attempt to shake readers who expect a solution at the end of the travel. Really, declaring that Ryukishi is self inserting himself as Ikuko to insult the readers is quite a "bold move" since the result of it would rather push people to either drop it or go way further, which in both cases don't match an actual condescending attitude towards his readers (in fact, such attitude would be way more safe and "enjoyable" if kept for oneself, instead of confronting the said audience).

Really, at this point, even Ryukishi's decision might look like a catbox. But frankly, for someone who dedicated 4 years in such story, his intent and goal are definitely much more positive and trustworthy than some people make it appear to be.
If you firmly believe that he is just bailing the bet by not disclosing the truth, allow me to state the opposite: he is actually raising the wage by doing so, and "bluffing" this way deal much more harm than if he "really presented a poor end". So for someone who is considered as a coward and "incompetent writer", the risk taken is really not reflecting such behaviour, to the contrary.

Either way, I guess it is basically useless to discuss any further about this, since that kind of discussion regarding Ryukishi's decision will lead to yet another cycle, which we don't exactly condone here. Either way, better to go back on tracks, as in discussing ep8 as a whole (theories etc should be redirected to the other thread).

AuraTwilight

2012-06-01, 01:38

Yeah, except that's your personal opinion. I didn't think it was crap. In fact I really enjoyed Umineko and was satisfied with its ending. Though I do understand the problem you had with it and find it reasonable, it doesn't mean everyone else had it too.

That's not really relevant. I said X, and you responded with "But if X is true, than Umineko is bad!" Well...yea, that's kind of the conclusion X is meant to lead you to. Saying that as if in protest doesn't really mean anything aside from "I don't wanna believe I invested so much time in something that wasn't worth it". It's not really anything that defends Umineko's quality as a work.

Except, the story has elements that confirm points left and right that can be used as a frame for theories. It isn't like every parts of the equations are unknown.

That doesn't matter. You can write mathematical equations that have enough solid numbers that many multiple answers are possible, but there is no 'single truth'. But if there's no correct answer ,then it's possible that actually running these answers can lead to incorrect mathematics.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-01, 05:28

That's not really relevant. I said X, and you responded with "But if X is true, than Umineko is bad!" Well...yea, that's kind of the conclusion X is meant to lead you to. Saying that as if in protest doesn't really mean anything aside from "I don't wanna believe I invested so much time in something that wasn't worth it". It's not really anything that defends Umineko's quality as a work.

You seem too confident that X is actually right, when there's no guarantee that it is (in fact, it seems far too irrational). You yourself said that it was 'implied' in an interview. Well, obviously, no one would like to think that they invested time in something that wasn't worth it, but my reason for disagreeing with X is nowhere close to that (because that's called denial). It's because it's stupid to begin with, and I actually do not see it hold any basis at all. Furthermore, Shkanon was around since EP1, or to use your own words, too obvious.

That doesn't matter. You can write mathematical equations that have enough solid numbers that many multiple answers are possible, but there is no 'single truth'. But if there's no correct answer ,then it's possible that actually running these answers can lead to incorrect mathematics.

Let's put it like this: 0x = 0.
Of course, this equation is indeterminate, but that's not because there exists no solution, rather, beacuse an infinte amount of solutions exists. Any number at all could be x.

Renall

2012-06-01, 10:30

Let's put it like this: 0x = 0.
Of course, this equation is indeterminate, but that's not because there exists no solution, rather, beacuse an infinte amount of solutions exists. Any number at all could be x.Well there's a big difference between the following two statements: "Here is an interesting little equation that, depending on how you work it, has tons of possible solutions!"
"Here's an equation. I think there's one correct solution. This, this, and this aren't the right solution. Actually, I know there's one correct solution. But I won't tell you if your math is right. Hey, if you like what you derived from the equation that works for me."Writing something for people to interpret as they will is one thing. Writing a story where you explicitly state you believe in the existence of a "correct" interpretation, then state extra-textually that you know what that interpretation is, but refuse to ever share it, makes you a huge dick.

But Klash is right, we should take this to the Overall Impressions thread if we want to continue this line of discussion about the work. Not that anyone will ever be able to discuss my concerns without willfully misinterpreting me, but if somebody wishes to engage me there I'll respond.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-01, 13:30

You seem too confident that X is actually right, when there's no guarantee that it is (in fact, it seems far too irrational). You yourself said that it was 'implied' in an interview. Well, obviously, no one would like to think that they invested time in something that wasn't worth it, but my reason for disagreeing with X is nowhere close to that (because that's called denial). It's because it's stupid to begin with, and I actually do not see it hold any basis at all. Furthermore, Shkanon was around since EP1, or to use your own words, too obvious.

Shkanon's existence doesn't mean Yasu's the culprit, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Ryukishi HAS factually stated in an interview with Keiya, however, that Yasu is trying to take all the blame for the incident and doesn't deserve it. He said she wasn't "the only" culprit, which is vague enough to be interpreted a shitload of ways. Given all the other data, I've chosen to interpret it as Yasu not being guilty at all.

In any case, though, Yasu-Culprit Theory is a red herring.

Thunder Book

2012-06-01, 13:43

So are you saying Yasu doesn't kill anyone in any of the games then?

Klashikari

2012-06-01, 13:47

Ryuudou

2012-06-01, 15:13

Shkanon's existence doesn't mean Yasu's the culprit, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Ryukishi HAS factually stated in an interview with Keiya, however, that Yasu is trying to take all the blame for the incident and doesn't deserve it. He said she wasn't "the only" culprit, which is vague enough to be interpreted a shitload of ways. Given all the other data, I've chosen to interpret it as Yasu not being guilty at all.

In any case, though, Yasu-Culprit Theory is a red herring.

I used to follow the Umineko animesuki forums religiously from episode 5 to the release of episode 8.

If, apparently, the general consensus has changed from "Yasu crossdressed and did it and that's a pretty disappointing way to settle everything" to something else then that excites me. Guess I have some catching up to do on the discussions.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-01, 15:15

Shkanon's existence doesn't mean Yasu's the culprit, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Because the basis on which most theories deny the Yasu theroy is that Shkannon is a red herring, I just assumed you meant all of it was bullcrap too, my bad.

Ryukishi HAS factually stated in an interview with Keiya, however, that Yasu is trying to take all the blame for the incident and doesn't deserve it.

Which interview are you talking about? Because Answer of The Golden Which clearly says that Yasu IS the culprit. It even gives a flat out answer to Natsuhi's closed room in EP2.

He said she wasn't "the only" culprit, which is vague enough to be interpreted a shitload of ways. Given all the other data, I've chosen to interpret it as Yasu not being guilty at all.

But it can also mean she has many accomplices. Then again, it's how everyone chooses to interpret it.

In any case, though, Yasu-Culprit Theory is a red herring.

I'll still preserve some reservations about that, at least as far as the Game Boards are concerned.

jjblue1

2012-06-01, 16:37

Well apart from the fact this is a complete construction with no actual basis it raises a few sensible questions:

I thought I already said why I came up with that theory and I also find rather weird to be asked to defend a theory I discharged around Ep 5 but let's ignore it and pretend we're still prior to Ep 5 and I haven't discharged it yet.

Let's even suppose that Battler had some sort of solid proof that rudolf and kyrie killed his mother, which is already difficult. (how could he know?)

Why do you assume he should have solid proof? Ange doesn't have solid proof Eva killed everyone in Rokkenjima and yet she think she's the culprit.
Asumu's death is convenient for Rudolf as it allows him to marry Kirye, the woman with whom he was cheating Asumu and whom he made pregnant.
It's also convenient for Kirye as she can marry the man she always wanted and that's the father of her baby.
It's extremely easy to suspect of them to be involved in her death.

1) Why would the rest of the family support Rudolf by becoming accomplice in that crime? What did they have to gain? None of the adults seem to particular like their siblings enough to get involved in that. Nobody even gives a rat ass about the family name ecept Natsuhi.

When I said 'accomplice' I didn't mean they pushed the trigger but just that they took his side. Be it to protect the family honour, their brother or because simply put Rudolf being put in jail would cause unnecessary troubles for them, each of them can have his own reason but, when all is said and done they just handled Rudolf the same way as before, accepted Kirye and apparently forgot about Asumu.

2) Even supposing they did for some reason, how could Battler also knew that the rest of the family covered Rudolf's and Kyrie's murder? That's not something that they would tell anyone. You need to imagine that someone inside the family acted as a mole, who would do that and why? If it isn't so, then Battler is completely paranoid.

You're assuming I thought Battler had some solid proofs of how everything went.
Actually it's not possible he had or he or his grandparents would have gone to the police and Rudolf and Kirye would have ended up in jail.

In my theory Battler made what, to him, looked like a solid theory, same as Erika did in Ep 5 pinning Natsuhi as culprit, and acted accordingly. Personally, if the Battler culprit theory had been the intended solution, I would have found interesting if it turned out that Battler's theory about his father murdering his mother was wrong, sort of an admonishment on how wrong/dangerous can be trying to administer justice by yourself.

In 10 Little Indians the mastermind decided that Vera was the culprit behind a kid's death but actually he had no proof whatsoever. He just heard how Vera's ex-boyfriend thought she was the one behind his death and agreed with him. Same for McArthur who might have really made just a mistake and not purposelly sent to death his love rival. We are told they're the culprits but the mastermind wasn't yet he decided they were due to circumstances and his experience.

Why shouldn't Battler also make the same reasoning?

3) The Shannon bit doesn't make much sense considering that Battler never contacted her for six years. If he blames her for that so much as wanting to kill her and the cousins, after he forgot he was supposed to meet her after one year (not six) then he's pretty much a crazy asshole.

At the time I made this theory Umineko hadn't reached yet the point about the promise. All I knew was he was supposed to come back for her on a white horse, not when.

And in Umineko Shannon never forgot Battler and yet she never contacted him in 6 years and her PieceYasu is apparently killing EVERYONE due to this.

Said so, this whole thing as I already said more than once is a theory I discharged because, of course, Chiru to me proved it to be wrong instead than giving additional elements that could be used to support it.

It was interesting for a while though, and it had potential, but it was obviously not the planned solution so I find rather weird you're trying to find weak points in something that had already been judged as 'not the right solution'.

Thunder Book

2012-06-01, 17:15

She doesn't actually have any motive for such deed. Rather, she is trying to attract Battler's attention with a life-sized mystery, but the setup lead to huge complications that were out of her control.
Episode 1-4 already confronted Battler with a "weirdly intricate and mystery driven murder ploy", which left huge questions to the "murderer" motive for such needlessly risky plan. This is also the reason why Episode 5 and Episode 6 involve "fake death".

Come to think of it, isn't there a Red Truth in Episode 7 that basically states the tragedy always happens and can't be simply averted?

Man I really need to reread everything from the beginning. I always thought everything pointed to Yasu as the Culprit for the most part but I guess that's not the case.

TwilightsCall

2012-06-01, 17:30

You have to remember that Yasu IS the culprit in a lot of the game boards, but that doesn't mean that she is the culprit for Rokkenjima Prime, which is what I think everyone is talking about when they say 'Battler Culprit Theory' or 'Shkanon Culprit Theory' etc.

I think. I may have just gotten lost in the discussion lol.

Thunder Book

2012-06-01, 17:31

I thought we were talking about the Game Boards right now.

I have no idea who the culprit is for Prime. While there are certain ideas I like more than others, I don't think we have enough information to piece together what really happened with any certainty.

theacefrehley

2012-06-01, 17:45

Well, I guess I was the one mistaking Prime/forgeries as the subject of the discussion here

Forget me
I'm clueless :(:upset:

GreyZone

2012-06-01, 17:50

Still talking about the game boards? Weren't they solved ever since EP7 was out? Also again the cycle of prime discussion restarted? Urgh... so much to "not stop thinking". The things to talk about are much too limited already, so instead of thinking about new things and collecting ideas, we go over the same things over and over again. And many opinions are split because of fork-thinking. For example, whenever i talk about a theory here, I create an Ikuko=RandomStranger version and also an Ikuko=Yasu version for that theory. If you try to divide the open options by even more "unknown" variables, then you will die from exhausting. (I have even become less active here because of that.)

So R07's reward to us for our hard thinking is.... that we are all "allowed to use any headcanon we want." wow i appreciate it... not...

seriously, this part really is on par with Mass Effect 3's ending...

But it really is only that one detail (one of the most important ones though). However I still think the rest of Umineko has been really nice. Let's just hope we will get at least partial answers, like for example a "gameboard" about prime or something like that, which does not reveal everything, but at the same time makes it POSSIBLE to deduce the truth with more than just speculations.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-01, 21:07

So are you saying Yasu doesn't kill anyone in any of the games then?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Yasu wrote herself as the culprit in the games to take the blame for the real culprit.

seriously, this part really is on par with Mass Effect 3's ending...

Agreed. Ryukishi, I appreciate your wanting an open-ended ending, but don't tell us to "Solve for X" and then never tell us what X is. You're basically making everyone waste their time.

Thunder Book

2012-06-02, 01:51

Oh okay then. I guess we pretty much were on the same page, but I just confused myself.

Yasu covering up for someone in Prime with the Game Boards really does seem like one of the only ways to make sense of part of the story (As far as Battler switching sides and whatnot), but that just leads into discussion about the whole catbox thing in the ending, and covering up the truth etc.

God even though I love this series I still find it frustrating as much as I find it fascinating. It's like being trapped in a maze, and constantly going through the same few paths while never finding the exit. It's like we're missing some key thing, and Ryu07 doesn't get that.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-02, 15:59

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Yasu wrote herself as the culprit in the games to take the blame for the real culprit.

That's a really interesting point of view. I'd also entertained that idea at some point, though this creates the following question: who would Yasu care so much about that would want to cover up for?

My current theory on the matter is that Yasu just threw those in the ocean for fun, inspired from her favorite novel. Maybe at that point she couldn't even imagine the misconceptions they would create.

Agreed. Ryukishi, I appreciate your wanting an open-ended ending, but don't tell us to "Solve for X" and then never tell us what X is. You're basically making everyone waste their time.

But he never said "Go and find what happened in Prime", (though he seems to believe this is also possible to reason out, then again it's impossible to confirm anyway), he challenged his readers to solve the gameboards which he answered, alright. Most people weren't even aware that a Prime truth should exist until that concept was introduced in EP8.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-02, 16:48

That's a really interesting point of view. I'd also entertained that idea at some point, though this creates the following question: who would Yasu care so much about that would want to cover up for?

Yasu has a noticeable empathy, respect, or love for just about everyone on Rokkenjima, and wants to put them all in the best light, so we've got options. But George and Battler are at the top.

But he never said "Go and find what happened in Prime", (though he seems to believe this is also possible to reason out, then again it's impossible to confirm anyway), he challenged his readers to solve the gameboards which he answered, alright. Most people weren't even aware that a Prime truth should exist until that concept was introduced in EP8.

He told us to "find the truth." He never said "Prime doesn't matter" or "focus on the Gameboards."

Also, you're wrong. Most people picked up on Prime since EP6, and there's insinuations about it existing as early as EP4.

Kealym

2012-06-02, 17:21

But he never said "Go and find what happened in Prime", (though he seems to believe this is also possible to reason out, then again it's impossible to confirm anyway), he challenged his readers to solve the gameboards which he answered, alright. Most people weren't even aware that a Prime truth should exist until that concept was introduced in EP8.

I'd say it was definitely introduced in EP6.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-02, 17:41

Yasu has a noticeable empathy, respect, or love for just about everyone on Rokkenjima, and wants to put them all in the best light, so we've got options. But George and Battler are at the top.

Though I have to add here that s/he also holds a little contempt for some (see Kanon's personality), plus it is implied that Shannon actually was more dissatisfied with her life than she let show.

Anyway, on the whole, I guess s/he did respect and love everyone, being the moddest person we've seen in EP7. But then again, Geroge and Battler seem like impossible culprits. Sure, there is this mumbo-jumbo with George's envy and insane love for Shannon, plus it gives Eva a reason to keep silent and all, but he's a milksop and there seems to be no logical reason for him to slaughter all those people. Battler...well, he does survive, but the idea of him being the culprit seems unrealistic as well, for more than one reasons.

I'd never bothered with Prime before, because it seemed too much of a wild-goose-chase, but I'm actually starting to get excited about this. Even though we can have no confirmation, I'm actually starting to be cajoled in constructing my truth as best as I can.

He told us to "find the truth." He never said "Prime doesn't matter" or "focus on the Gameboards."

True as that may be, even though he never told us not to bother with Prime, we were kinda showered with lines like 'try and deny the witch', 'is this possible by human tricks?' 'try and solve my game if you can Ushiromyia Battleeeeer' and stuff.

To be perfectly fair, not showing the truth in the end might seem like sort of a middle finger to those who tried to think about Prime, but that doesn't mean they waisted their time.

(He also says that when you reach the truth you'll know it, well, I guess everything starts to tie in, but we can't know how reliable this actually is since even if you find the actual, undisputable truth you can't be above 99% sure.)

Also, you're wrong. Most people picked up on Prime since EP6, and there's insinuations about it existing as early as EP4.

Whoops, yeah, my bad, meant to say 6....
Anyway, my point is the same, Prime was introduced close to the series' ending, (or rather, the end of mystery since EP6 is supposed to be a confession).

Plus, I think he had said he never intended to actually expose the contents of Prime before EP7 was released.

GreyZone

2012-06-02, 18:36

True as that may be, even though he never told us not to bother with Prime, we were kinda showered with lines like 'try and deny the witch', 'is this possible by human tricks?' 'try and solve my game if you can Ushiromyia Battleeeeer' and stuff.

I cannot remember hearing this line in chiru even once. The setting shifted from

"Battler vs Beato" / "Lambda vs Battler vs Bern": try to find the truth and expose me
to
"Battler vs Lambda+Bern+Erika" / "BATTLER vs Erika": try and defeat me to win this game.

Whoops, yeah, my bad, meant to say 6....
Anyway, my point is the same, Prime was introduced close to the series' ending, (or rather, the end of mystery since EP6 is supposed to be a confession).

Plus, I think he had said he never intended to actually expose the contents of Prime before EP7 was released.

But after EP6 I think most people were able to solve the 4 gameboards... so EP7 gave some additional background information and EP8's purpose was.... NOTHING? I don't buy the "it was closure for the fantasy"-explanation. EP8 had most Meta content in Umineko by far. But it's also implied that the whole of EP8 only played in Ange's mind...

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-02, 19:01

I cannot remember hearing this line in chiru even once.

Yeah, because they were never said there. The 'mystery' doesn't start in chiru, it ends in chiru.

The setting shifted from
"Battler vs Beato" / "Lambda vs Battler vs Bern": try to find the truth and expose me
to
"Battler vs Lambda+Bern+Erika" / "BATTLER vs Erika": try and defeat me to win this game.

This is basically irrelevant. 'Try and defeat me to win this game' also means 'try to solve the game boards'.

But after EP6 I think most people were able to solve the 4 gameboards... so EP7 gave some additional background information and EP8's purpose was.... NOTHING? I don't buy the "it was closure for the fantasy"-explanation. EP8 had most Meta content in Umineko by far. But it's also implied that the whole of EP8 only played in Ange's mind...

I'm not Ryukishi, so I can't tell you what the purpose of EP8 was. At least it wasn't to expose Prime. But well...I don't see what you're in disagreement with. Do you choose to see it as Ange's inner conflict, (she'd have some serious psychological problems in that case), do you choose to see it as Tohya's inner conflict, do you choose to see it as Battler trying to make Ange choose something, do you choose to see it as an allegory? It all depends. Bottom line is, just because it doesn't give answers, it doesn't mean it was pointless.

To answer with Ryukishi's own words:
EP7 was the heart and soul of all the hints and answers. And EP8 is something like an afterword to round up the story. What I wanted to portray in EP8 were two things. One was a message towards those who has arrived at the truth. The other was a party feeling to those who did not find it, saying "You may not have understood everything, but it was a hell lot of fun."

GreyZone

2012-06-02, 19:21

This is basically irrelevant. 'Try and defeat me to win this game' also means 'try to solve the game boards'.

No, it IS irrelevent! In EP1-4 Battler wanted to know what really happened, while in EP5-6 Erika's only intention is to be respected as a detective and to win the game by all means, as she PURPOSELY ignored the fact that Kinzo is dead to create her theory, that she knew herself, was not the truth. In EP6 even more... instead of just solving the game, she had to resort to a "META-trick".

To answer with Ryukishi's own words:
EP7 was the heart and soul of all the hints and answers. And EP8 is something like an afterword to round up the story. What I wanted to portray in EP8 were two things. One was a message towards those who has arrived at the truth. The other was a party feeling to those who did not find it, saying "You may not have understood everything, but it was a hell lot of fun."

Truth... of what? Gameboards? Prime? Can you answer me R07? Oh wait he is not here...

AuraTwilight

2012-06-02, 19:26

But then again, Geroge and Battler seem like impossible culprits. Sure, there is this mumbo-jumbo with George's envy and insane love for Shannon, plus it gives Eva a reason to keep silent and all, but he's a milksop and there seems to be no logical reason for him to slaughter all those people. Battler...well, he does survive, but the idea of him being the culprit seems unrealistic as well, for more than one reasons.

There's no logical reason for anyone to slaughter anyone. That's the big problem with Umineko as a whole; Ryukishi wrote himself into a corner. However, George DOES have a motive for killing SOME people, atleast; he wants his future with Shannon and if, say, his parents, or Jessica and Battler, or whatever, want to get in the way of that...

This is basically irrelevant. 'Try and defeat me to win this game' also means 'try to solve the game boards'.

So basically what you're saying is that Ryukishi moved the goalposts.

And that's meant to make me feel better?

GreyZone

2012-06-02, 20:00

There's no logical reason for anyone to slaughter anyone. That's the big problem with Umineko as a whole; Ryukishi wrote himself into a corner. However, George DOES have a motive for killing SOME people, atleast; he wants his future with Shannon and if, say, his parents, or Jessica and Battler, or whatever, want to get in the way of that...

If Eva knew that "Shanon" owns 10 tons of gold... she would reconsider her stance probably...

Jan-Poo

2012-06-02, 20:38

But he never said "Go and find what happened in Prime"

You mean you never empathized not even a little with Ange and her quest to find what happened on Rokkenjima?

If Ryuukishi only wanted us to reason about the gameboards he shouldn't have started narrating of a character whose only purpose is to find the truth of Rokkenjima Prime.

I don't quite understand what you mean with "he never told us to", you mean directly and explicitly? Usually as a reader of a mystery you are supposed to try and solve whatever mystery the main character is trying to solve, you don't wait for the word of god to make it apparent, and Ange has always been the main character of her own story inside of Umineko. She is undoubtly the detective on the Rokkenjima Prime side.

Ryuudou

2012-06-02, 23:12

What is "prime" exactly?

TwilightsCall

2012-06-02, 23:31

What actually happened at Rokkenjima, as opposed to the games Beatrice was playing with/against Battler and so on.

Ryuudou

2012-06-02, 23:43

What actually happened at Rokkenjima, as opposed to the games Beatrice was playing with/against Battler and so on.

Ah. Thank you.

Does Episode 1 count as a prime or a game board then? If I remember correctly there were no meta elements.

GoldenLand

2012-06-02, 23:56

Ah. Thank you.

Does Episode 1 count as a prime or a game board then? If I remember correctly there were no meta elements.

It's a gameboard. It's a story Beatrice wrote. (It also does have meta elements, if you're counting the tea party afterwards.)

TwilightsCall

2012-06-03, 00:33

See, I was under the impression when reading that EP1 was what 'actually' happened, and then the rest of the game boards were Beatrice and Battler's 'fight to deny the witch' thing. Obviously that doesn't seem to be the consensus though, and with the way they treat the 'actual truth' of what happened in Ep8 it seems highly unlikely now. But you know, thats what I thought while reading Ep 1 to 4 lol.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-03, 00:54

What is "prime" exactly?

Rokkenjima Prime is basically the 'real world.' Umineko keeps showing us "what-ifs" and "alternate scenarios", even with 1998 itself, so Rokkenjima Prime refers to the actual world of Umineko that all the other Gameboards and stories are based off of.

Peophin

2012-06-03, 01:10

I've been a lurker for a while now, and this is my first time posting, but I wanted to speak my mind after reading some of the discussion here.

I understand that a lot of people here are frustrated that Ryukishi has never revealed what happened on Prime despite claiming there is an answer, yes? In my case, I personally have never been interested in the "actual truth." Honestly, in the first half of EP8 I found Ange annoying more than anything, and I was satisfied with the ending.

The thing is, I only started playing Umineko sometime last year, and I didn't even start Chiru until Witch Hunt's translation of EP8 was finished. And obviously a lot of you on this forum have spent far more time invested in this game than I have. For a while, I was honestly confused as to why someone would want to know what happened on Prime, since it had never been an issue for me in the first place. After reading through some of the discussions on here, I think I can finally understand why a lot of people weren't happy with the ending.

Basically, while I have a differing opinion from many of you, now I can (finally) understand where those differing opinions are coming from. It's an issue that's been bugging me for a while, so I just felt like I had to put my two cents in~

Drifloon

2012-06-03, 03:17

That's pretty much how I feel honestly.

I think most people who weren't involved in the discussion and theorising about the series were perfectly happy with EP8's ending. Unfortunately, those voices aren't the ones you hear, so one gets the impression that it was a massive disappointment to everyone.

GreyZone

2012-06-03, 04:40

I don't have a problem with the ending, but I would be really happy, if R07 AT SOME TIME decides to reveal, or at least hint at the truth. If it is in 3 years, no problem. But if he never does, then i really feel disappointed.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-03, 05:56

There's no logical reason for anyone to slaughter anyone.

Yes, I mean an adequate justification as to what would lead him to do it. Of course, when we deal with a serial murderer that kills so many innocent, the reason behind it is bound to be somewhat lead by emotion or even psychological disorders.

However, George DOES have a motive for killing SOME people, atleast; he wants his future with Shannon and if, say, his parents, or Jessica and Battler, or whatever, want to get in the way of that...

Possibly...Then again, just eloping would have nicely solved all those problems, especially when having ten tons of gold at their disposal. Since we're talking Ryukishi here though, your idea would be the first thing that would come to their minds naturally:heh:, I guess I just don't like the Geroge culprit theory.

I don't quite understand what you mean with "he never told us to", you mean directly and explicitly? Usually as a reader of a mystery you are supposed to try and solve whatever mystery the main character is trying to solve, you don't wait for the word of god to make it apparent, and Ange has always been the main character of her own story inside of Umineko. She is undoubtly the detective on the Rokkenjima Prime side.

To be perfectly fair, he never said 'look for Prime', but he never said 'don't look for Prime either'. I guess it's not an excuse either way. It depends on what expectations existed.

(To be honest, the Ange scenes 12 years later kinda bored me to death)

I think most people who weren't involved in the discussion and theorising about the series were perfectly happy with EP8's ending. Unfortunately, those voices aren't the ones you hear, so one gets the impression that it was a massive disappointment to everyone.

I actually theorized a lot, even re-read entire EPs looking for hints, and wasn't bothered by the ending one little bit, I actually liked it. In fact, I also found Ange very annoying at that point.

Though it's easy to see where the disappointment comes from. Many people expected Ryukihsi to clearly reveal all answers in EP8, which is nothing close to what he was thinking of doing.

Thunder Book

2012-06-03, 06:11

Jan-Poo

2012-06-03, 07:25

By the way he didn't properly explain all that happened in the gameboards either.
He couldn't bring himself to write a clear cut explanation not even in a booklet released after the main story which was meant to be an explanation.
He didn't even clearly explained how shkanon exactly worked.

This is pretty shocking from a person who once said that "it's sad to come up with an answer if you have no way to see if it's right or not. If there's no answer, you can't get any joy out of reading the book of riddles".

But it seems that he just doesn't want to give answers now. At Epitanime he even put a veto on any question regarding Umineko and its mysteries.

See, I was under the impression when reading that EP1 was what 'actually' happened, and then the rest of the game boards were Beatrice and Battler's 'fight to deny the witch' thing.

If that was true, it would mean that all the parts with Ange including the meeting between Yukari Kotoboki and Tohya Hachijo at the end of EP8 were just fictions, because in that universe Eva survived.

I think it is very hard to justify all that as being a "game" considering that games are meant to be set on Rokkenjima and work inside the boundaries of the catbox. While on the other hand of the universe of Ep1 we only know what happened inside the catbox and nothing after that.

Klashikari

2012-06-03, 07:30

But it seems that he just doesn't want to give answers now. At Epitanime he even put a veto on any question regarding Umineko and its mysteries.
Actually no, that's the decision the saff and I took. We predicted that some people would question Ryukishi about his decision regarding the ending, so in order to cut the chase, we asked him to explain the purpose of such ending (and obviously, he kept his stance not to explain the ending of Episode 8).
Also, since a great deal of people most likely watched only the anime, they could have been at risk of being spoiled by questions about mysteries. Therefore, in order to be safe, we took that measure in order not to let anything rampant.

Drifloon

2012-06-03, 07:33

It's not just that he didn't reveal answers, but the justification given in the story felt like a big "Eff you for even trying to find answers" to some of us.

It's like, why did I even try and solve this just to be told that at the end?

Were people really trying seriously to solve Prime, though?

From what I can tell, the discussion in this thread from before EP8 was out has been almost exclusively about the gameboards, which I think have been answered adequately.

The mystery that everyone was trying to solve WAS answered, more or less. Though yeah, I wish he'd been a bit clearer about it.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-03, 07:44

Actually no, that's the decision the saff and I took.

My bad, still I wonder what would he have answered then.
It is clear that he doesn't want to talk about what is "inside the catbox", but I wonder what he would answer if I were to ask him to give clarifications about all that is outside the catbox, in other words things that anyone from the 1998 perspective could easily find with a bit of research.

I'd have a LOT of questions about that.

Were people really trying seriously to solve Prime, though?

You can bet I was!
I always cared about it more than the gameboards.

After "understanding who is Beatrice and her reasons", which is the main point Umineko really, I wanted to know what happened on Rokkenjima prime.

The single tricks of every murder in the gameboards in the end are for the most part just cheap tricks.

GreyZone

2012-06-03, 08:34

I actually theorized a lot, even re-read entire EPs looking for hints, and wasn't bothered by the ending one little bit, I actually liked it. In fact, I also found Ange very annoying at that point.

While I view the ending as "ok", i have some problems with it. For example the "power levels" of people at the end. In the great library Lambda 1st said "None of us have any chance against these cats", later she just went and kicked their asses and was even almost winning against bern, until Featherine showed up.

Then Battler said "Inside this place my GM powers are gone and me, a human, has no chance against a witch."
then.... lastendconductor.ogg and Battler starts to kick bern's ass, until she starts to attack him with mysteries that kill him.

Then Ange becomes the "witch of resurrection" again, that was last time hinted in EP4... and revives the whole gameboard inside the library....

I had the feeling the ending was rushed in some way...

Drifloon

2012-06-03, 08:58

While I view the ending as "ok", i have some problems with it. For example the "power levels" of people at the end. In the great library Lambda 1st said "None of us have any chance against these cats", later she just went and kicked their asses and was even almost winning against bern, until Featherine showed up.

Then Battler said "Inside this place my GM powers are gone and me, a human, has no chance against a witch."
then.... lastendconductor.ogg and Battler starts to kick bern's ass, until she starts to attack him with mysteries that kill him.

This is kind of one of the main themes in the series, isn't it? Tons of scenes in all the games have people overcoming impossible odds because of their force of certain determination...Krauss and the goat even numerically defines it, but there are lots of other examples besides that.

Then Ange becomes the "witch of resurrection" again, that was last time hinted in EP4... and revives the whole gameboard inside the library....

You realise that 'the witch of resurrection' is a symbolic title, right? She originally obtained it by 'reviving' Sakutaro, which wasn't magic at all; she just handed over a copy of the stuffed animal.

The 'revival' of the family was pretty obviously meant to represent the fact that she would continue to believe in her family coming back to her regardless of everything that suggested otherwise.

Remember, the whole of EP8 is implied to be inside Ange's head, you probably shouldn't take it all so literally.

haguruma

2012-06-03, 10:19

After "understanding who is Beatrice and her reasons", which is the main point Umineko really, I wanted to know what happened on Rokkenjima prime.
Though that'd defeat the whole purpose of Umineko: A mystery that will forever be a mystery, for both good and bad. Basically it's both about the perfect crime and the perfect blessing...and giving an answer to that defeats the whole message of the story.
Sure, it may suck if you really wanted an answer above anything else. But it's basically the same as wanting [insert famous novel X] to end differently just because you didn't like the ending. I would agree with this point if Umineko actually didn't have a theme or broke it's theme along the way, but it didn't.

This is pretty shocking from a person who once said that "it's sad to come up with an answer if you have no way to see if it's right or not. If there's no answer, you can't get any joy out of reading the book of riddles".
Well, blame that on him developing as a person. At the time he wrote Higurashi he believed in that point of view, but apparently after getting so much negative criticism and the Higurashi mystery becoming almost ineffective because of spoilers, he wanted to go another route.
He let Featherine say it in EP6: "If I give you my answer, you stop thinking. That would be no fun."
And it's not only an attempt to keep it interesting for himself, but also to keep the work in itself interesting, to keep up discussion about it. Especially in an age of almost instant information about anything it's hard to keep a mystery intact.
You could basically answer the quote from Higurashi by saying: "But what fun is it if everybody is laughing about you, because you haven't found the answer? Or if somebody just jumped out and told it to you because he wanted to feel superior?"

Remember, the whole of EP8 is implied to be inside Ange's head, you probably shouldn't take it all so literally.
I'd go as far as to say that you shouldn't take anything in Umineko as literal truth, because it is all painted with opinion and belief of the characters, that's the theme.
But yes, especially EP8 is all about Ange coming to terms with what has been said about her family, the incident in 1986, conspiracies, etc.
All those battles fought in that episode can be seen merely as the different points of view (hate vs. love) clashing and what Ange is able to keep for herself.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-03, 12:01

Though that'd defeat the whole purpose of Umineko: A mystery that will forever be a mystery, for both good and bad. Basically it's both about the perfect crime and the perfect blessing...and giving an answer to that defeats the whole message of the story.

I don't really think Umineko is about "the perfect crime". Of what little I know about it nothing strikes me as "perfect", if anything it suggests everything went terribly wrong.

Sure, it may suck if you really wanted an answer above anything else. But it's basically the same as wanting [insert famous novel X] to end differently just because you didn't like the ending. I would agree with this point if Umineko actually didn't have a theme or broke it's theme along the way, but it didn't.

What's wrong in not liking a story because you didn't like the ending?

Well, blame that on him developing as a person. At the time he wrote Higurashi he believed in that point of view, but apparently after getting so much negative criticism and the Higurashi mystery becoming almost ineffective because of spoilers, he wanted to go another route.

And that's "improving" instead of "worsening" because?
I still strongly believe in the full validity of what he claimed in the past.
This is an "aut aut" situation. He was either wrong back then or he was right.
You prefer the new Ryuukishi, I prefer the one in the past.

My let down is justified because I used to like his style as it was, and now he has changed. Why should I change my view because he did?

He let Featherine say it in EP6: "If I give you my answer, you stop thinking. That would be no fun."

I don't agree with it, I rather agree with the statement that a riddle with no solution is no fun.

Especially in an age of almost instant information about anything it's hard to keep a mystery intact.

Really? In my experience real life has an abundance of murder cases that remained unsolved. I don't need more of that in my escapism. It's already sad enough as it is.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-03, 12:42

I don't really think Umineko is about "the perfect crime". Of what little I know about it nothing strikes me as "perfect", if anything it suggests everything went terribly wrong.

Actually, the 'perfection' here comes from the definition of a 'perfect crime' Keichi's mother gives in Higurashi. It's perfect because it was never witnessed. Everyone in the future 12 years later just assumes there was a crime in Rokenjima on October 4th, but there is no evidence supporting that. All there is are the two message bottles, which can hardly be regarded as proof for anything.

So, if we assume a crime did take place in Rokenjima of 1986, that would be a perfect crime, because nobody discovered it.

I don't agree with it, I rather agree with the statement that a riddle with no solution is no fun.

It's not exactly like that. Let's put it this way, the very existence for Umineko's story is the cat box itself. A secluded island in the middle of a typhoon. Everything is destroyed in the end, so no one will ever know what happened there during the span of those two days. Based on that premise, Beatrice creates a mystery game that is allowed to exist because of the cat box. That 'truth' as artificial as it may be, is allowed to exist in the cat box until it is oppened. Since it is never opened, she can create as many game boards as she pleases to challenge Battler with.

Drifloon

2012-06-03, 12:42

What's wrong in not liking a story because you didn't like the ending?

Because a disappointing ending shouldn't automatically negate all the enjoyment you got out of the rest of the story.

And that's "improving" instead of "worsening" because?
I still strongly believe in the full validity of what he claimed in the past.
This is an "aut aut" situation. He was either wrong back then or he was right.
You prefer the new Ryuukishi, I prefer the one in the past.

My let down is justified because I used to like his style as it was, and now he has changed. Why should I change my view because he did?

Well, that wasn't really what he was saying, was it? You said it was shocking that Ryukishi changed his viewpoint and he explained why he did so. Whether you agree with his reasoning isn't really relevant to that.

Though I personally do like that I had to think about the gameboard's solutions and replay the game to truly understand everything. I got more out of the game that way; I'd never want to replay Higurashi, since it told me everything. That said, I am disappointed that some parts of the solution simply do not have the necessary information in the game, which leads to you having to guess without basis (the reason for the murders past the eighth twilight in Ep1, 3 and 4, for example), which is my only real problem with Umineko.

Really? In my experience real life has an abundance of murder cases that remained unsolved. I don't need more of that in my escapism. It's already sad enough as it is.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he was saying. The point was that if Ryukishi had given a straight answer, people would be able to be spoiled on the solution very easily.

Since he doesn't give the solution, people have to come to it themselves without just checking the answer on the internet and then leaving.

Renall

2012-06-03, 12:50

Though that'd defeat the whole purpose of Umineko: A mystery that will forever be a mystery, for both good and bad. Basically it's both about the perfect crime and the perfect blessing...and giving an answer to that defeats the whole message of the story.Except it's only a perfect crime because as the author he's a gatekeeper that can hide from us information we reasonably ought to have access to.

Jan-Poo's point about the world outside the catbox being criminally under-developed, for example. That keeps certain things unclear even though they shouldn't be.He let Featherine say it in EP6: "If I give you my answer, you stop thinking. That would be no fun."If there is no answer, you never stop thinking because you can't ever come to a conclusion. That's also not fun.Really? In my experience real life has an abundance of murder cases that remained unsolved. I don't need more of that in my escapism. It's already sad enough as it is.I don't even care if it remains unsolved in Prime, but at least let us know what's going on.Because a disappointing ending shouldn't automatically negate all the enjoyment you got out of the rest of the story.It shouldn't, but it can.That has absolutely nothing to do with what he was saying. The point was that if Ryukishi had given a straight answer, people would be able to be spoiled on the solution very easily.

Since he doesn't give the solution, people have to come to it themselves without just checking the answer on the internet and then leaving.Except there is no solution, so you can't actually reach it. It's the exact opposite of that problem you just stated, and just as bad if not worse since you can always choose to steer yourself away from spoilers, but you can't choose to reference a solution that doesn't exist.

GoldenLand

2012-06-03, 14:07

I don't mind if Ryukishi takes a few more years before he tells us the truth of the game, as long as he tells us. In some ways I appreciate that he hasn't yet told us the solution, because it means that people can still theorise. And there is some beauty in the idea of each person being able to find their own truth. But I don't believe that Ryukishi has given us good enough tools to find the "real" truth, or even a small range of possible real truths. In my opinion, there is really not that much information he's given us which can support Rokkenjima Prime theories, and this is one of the weaknesses of his choice. Person X out of those on the island was the culprit? Well, we haven't been shown a sufficient motive for any of them to kill all of those people. And if it was an accident, we haven't been been given enough info to make a solid theory based on that, either. We can guess, and can have preferred theories, but we have so little info about Prime that it is very difficult to say.

So I'd say that he has failed to give us the info we need. And on top of that, he's refusing to give us the answer at all. If he thinks it will harm the artistic vision of his story by people being able to outright say the answer, that "It was Kinzo, who wasn't really dead!" or "Gohda killed them all with food poisoning, and the bomb went off due to a malfunction" or whatever, I think he is still under an obligation to tell us sometime, even if he puts it off a few years more to eke out the interest in the franchise and let more people have a go at theorising. It's very presumptuous of him to think that Umineko is so special that it does not need the solution to be given eventually, even if that means that what he doesn't want - that being an answer which can be copypasted - happens. A writer of a mystery should give the solution in the end, so that the readers can see whether they were right. At the very least, a writer should give the tools necessary for solving the mystery in a satisfying way, but we can't, because we don't know enough about Prime.

I half suspect that he went for not telling the answer because he thinks the true answer is inadequate. Or that he changed his mind part way through the series and that there is no longer a true answer at all.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-03, 17:33

Actually, the 'perfection' here comes from the definition of a 'perfect crime' Keichi's mother gives in Higurashi. It's perfect because it was never witnessed. Everyone in the future 12 years later just assumes there was a crime in Rokenjima on October 4th, but there is no evidence supporting that. All there is are the two message bottles, which can hardly be regarded as proof for anything.

So, if we assume a crime did take place in Rokenjima of 1986, that would be a perfect crime, because nobody discovered it.

But that's not true. There is a witness, and that's a witness that was supposed to be a victim no less.

The very fact that she survived is the proof that it wasn't a perfect crime.

It's not exactly like that. Let's put it this way, the very existence for Umineko's story is the cat box itself. A secluded island in the middle of a typhoon. Everything is destroyed in the end, so no one will ever know what happened there during the span of those two days. Based on that premise, Beatrice creates a mystery game that is allowed to exist because of the cat box. That 'truth' as artificial as it may be, is allowed to exist in the cat box until it is oppened. Since it is never opened, she can create as many game boards as she pleases to challenge Battler with.

But that wasn't Beatrice's purpose at all.
The only reason she did what she did was to create a desperate situation to call forth a miracle. A miracle that unfortunately didn't happen.

All that happened after the explosion was not what Beatrice truly wanted. And the wild speculations that occured later as well as the creation of infinite forgeries weren't part of Beatrice's plan and in fact EP8 pretty much says that they are "evil" and Ikuko makes them stop.

I don't even care if it remains unsolved in Prime, but at least let us know what's going on.

Of course. It's perfectly acceptable as long as the reader gets to know the truth. Unless the truth has never been important in the first place, but it's too late to tell me that after I've spent years trying to figure it out.

Drifloon

2012-06-04, 02:17

Except there is no solution, so you can't actually reach it. It's the exact opposite of that problem you just stated, and just as bad if not worse since you can always choose to steer yourself away from spoilers, but you can't choose to reference a solution that doesn't exist.

Well, I was talking about the gameboards, which I DO believe have solutions. I think all the important points of the gameboards are solvable, though like I said, I think the main flaw of Umineko is that there are a few mysteries that have multiple possible answers and no decisive evidence to choose one over the others, which is unfortunate. Still, for the most part, the who dunnit, why dunnit and how dunnit can be reached based on the information in the first seven games.

Of course Prime isn't solvable, but it had so little coverage in the game that I'm not sure why people care so much.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-04, 03:05

Of course Prime isn't solvable, but it had so little coverage in the game that I'm not sure why people care so much.

Because Ryukishi made us care about what happened to these people. It's not satisfying to know how they killed in these 'imaginary' stories when we empathize enough with them to want to know why they died in the 'real' world.

How hard is this to grasp, honestly?

GoldenLand

2012-06-04, 04:35

Of course Prime isn't solvable, but it had so little coverage in the game that I'm not sure why people care so much.

It's because although details of Prime itself weren't given, Ryukishi made a really big thing of the one truth. Ange searched for the truth in all her plotlines. Ep 7's tea party and ep 8's main story were all about the one truth, for her.

Aside from that, it's as AuraTwilight says. We've spent a long time reading about the characters who died/disappeared on Rokkenjima, reading stories about what might have happened to them. But we still don't know what really happened. It's fairly natural to want to know.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-04, 14:52

Drifloon

2012-06-04, 14:59

Right. And for those who sympathized with Ange, it's like....why did you make a huge 1998 story nearly the length of a full Episode? Ange's not going to be satisfied with gameboards, and if we care about her, why the fuck did you give you so much damn screentime?

Because her story gives a big insight into Beatrice's heart, which is key to the 'why dunnit'.

Renall

2012-06-04, 15:20

Because her story gives a big insight into Beatrice's heart, which is key to the 'why dunnit'.So nothing she wanted mattered, because it was all about Beatrice?

Man, "everything is all about Beatrice" makes Umineko into some narcissistic fantasy about and by a selfish overly-emotional person with delusions of grandeur and self-importance, a near-complete lack of empathy despite believing him/herself to be the most empathetic person in the world, and a possessive desire to be adored by people who barely even know him/her, to the point that he/she believes it would be possible to commit a heinous and unforgivable crime and be sympathized with - even loved and thanked - for it.

...Actually that'd make Yasu a much better villain than the way he/she is presently being read, to be frank.

Drifloon

2012-06-04, 15:54

So nothing she wanted mattered, because it was all about Beatrice?

I wouldn't say that, since she got to meet Battler again.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-04, 18:16

Right. And for those who sympathized with Ange, it's like....why did you make a huge 1998 story nearly the length of a full Episode? Ange's not going to be satisfied with gameboards, and if we care about her, why the fuck did you give you so much damn screentime?

Because apparently he wanted to make a point of 'the truth is not that important' at the cost of having most of his readership chasing him with bats and torches. And Ange did find the truth eventually.

GoldenLand

2012-06-04, 18:17

Because her story gives a big insight into Beatrice's heart, which is key to the 'why dunnit'.

By the time of episode 8, we've already found out who Beatrice is, and the story about revealing her heart has been completed. By that point, Ange had already been given lots of screentime about her search for the truth. But in ep 8 we're still given a whole episode focused on the one truth and Ange's feelings. Ryukishi was aware that most fans wanted to know what happened in Prime, and addressed that in ep 8, even though he refused to show the truth.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-04, 20:53

Because apparently he wanted to make a point of 'the truth is not that important' at the cost of having most of his readership chasing him with bats and torches. And Ange did find the truth eventually.

But we followed Ange. We were made to go through her experiences in all ways except for the actual denouement of her quest. No matter how you read that, that's cheating the reader. If you want us to see her reach her goal, you have to actually show her goal's achievement. Show, not Tell.

Also, several readers ethically disagree with his "the truth doesn't matter" aesop. Because it hurts people. Kuwasama's children, Nanjo's family, Gohda's mother, Jessica's friends...

Why the hell does Ange get to know, but not them? There's a boat captain who felt that that if he arrived sooner, he could've saved them all. He might be wrong, and the truth might set him free.

There must be police officers who lost sleep over being unable to absolve the innocent of suspicion, and bring the truth to light.

And as long as the truth is locked up in the darkness, innocent people will be treated as criminals and murderers, and their memories will be tarnished with malicious speculation, slander, and libel. Eva's suffering will be for nothing, Battler's struggles will be without meaning, and Ange will have to settle with the Silver Medal.

haguruma

2012-06-05, 07:06

Man, Japanese timezone is even bitchier than Germany...so much to quote :heh:

Except there is no solution, so you can't actually reach it. It's the exact opposite of that problem you just stated, and just as bad if not worse since you can always choose to steer yourself away from spoilers, but you can't choose to reference a solution that doesn't exist.
I wouldn't say that Umineko's approach to the problem is perfect in the slightest, though I would say that all questions have been sufficiently answered and everything beyond that would just defeat the purpose of Umineko and destroy the effect he wanted to reach.
He wants people to be able to continue writing message bottles for example. If knowledge about who died how spread wide enough those stories would cease to be possibilities and become mere fantasies...that's the problem of giving a definitive answer.

Is it perfect? No way.
Is it a legitimate way to reconstruct the mystery approach? Sure.

But that's not true. There is a witness, and that's a witness that was supposed to be a victim no less.

The very fact that she survived is the proof that it wasn't a perfect crime.
But it was, because the survivors never told what really happened.
The perfect crime does not constitute the death of everyone in a certain area, it merely means that the truth is made forever unaccessable. A silent witness is as good as no witness at all.

But that wasn't Beatrice's purpose at all.
The only reason she did what she did was to create a desperate situation to call forth a miracle. A miracle that unfortunately didn't happen.
Yes, but Beatrice does not exist.
You see, here we reach the conundrum. Beatrice is part of what constitutes the cat box and at the same time the presence of the cat box only creates Beatrice. There might as well not have been any Beatrice on the island.
Beatrice, no, the whole meta world in itself represents the duality of both the wish to hide and to reveal everything. It is brought forth by the fact that anybody even thinks about the case at all. Unless of course you believe in its corporeal existence, which would make a logical solution to the case obsolete.

Because Ryukishi made us care about what happened to these people. It's not satisfying to know how they killed in these 'imaginary' stories when we empathize enough with them to want to know why they died in the 'real' world.

How hard is this to grasp, honestly?
Really, I know I have been attacked often enough for claiming this, but how is it a sign of "caring" or "empathizing" to want to know how a person died? It is either an act of self-assurement or a displacement of personal pain by watching the pain of others. What do we gain by knowing anything beyond the fact that they did die? And I don't play at a superficial answer like, "it is the solution to the mystery of Prime"....I want to know what we gain for the story as a whole, on a broader level.

...Actually that'd make Yasu a much better villain than the way he/she is presently being read, to be frank.
I actually believe that this is what makes him/her such a compelling villain.
Being basically a deranged child who threw a tantrum because of an inability to make a decision and, by being placed in one closed circle with equally unstable people, brought about a terrible disaster all the while believing it was all about love.
Though this reading is painted with my view of love and emotion of course :D

Renall

2012-06-05, 08:06

But it was, because the survivors never told what really happened.
The perfect crime does not constitute the death of everyone in a certain area, it merely means that the truth is made forever unaccessable. A silent witness is as good as no witness at all.But Eva's silence wasn't something the culprit, if there ever was one, could actually control by any means we're made aware of. Eva has money, power, and security once she's escaped; she has no reason to remain silent merely to help the killer go uncaught (unless she herself is a killer or accomplice, something that the games seemed to be driving hard against).

It's equivalent to saying that stealing the Mona Lisa by just walking into the Louvre and prying it off the wall and leaving through a fire door is a perfect crime, even though it only worked because the guards all just happened to be napping or on break, the alarm and camera system just happened to be undergoing repairs that day, and no visitors happened to be looking at the most famous painting in the world for the five minutes you were in the room stealing it. You got away with it, nobody knows who did it or how, yet somehow I find fault with the idea that this sort of thing could be a "perfect crime."

If there was a culprit, he or she left witnesses and left evidence. A lot of evidence, in fact. The problem is, Ryukishi didn't bother writing about a lot of that evidence, so things that people in Prime-1998 or Prime-Present should know are unknown to us.

Plus it's not really a perfect crime - assuming a Yasu culprit anyway - when you confess to it. Even if symbolically. Granted if Yasu scapegoating herself was part of a non-Yasu culprit's cover then that goes closer to the perfect crime notion, except again I fail to see how they could control her doing it in any way.

Drifloon

2012-06-05, 10:18

He wants people to be able to continue writing message bottles for example. If knowledge about who died how spread wide enough those stories would cease to be possibilities and become mere fantasies...that's the problem of giving a definitive answer.

Well, as much as I do like that people can continue writing Forgeries...I'm not sure this is what Ryukishi wanted, since:
-The people writing the Forgeries are portrayed as antagonists in EP8.
-Ikuko not revealing the truth apparently somehow STOPPED the Forgeries (yeah, I don't get this either)
-The "accept that you'll never know what happened and move on" message is in complete opposition to continuing to theorise about it. (Then again, Ryukishi's own constant insistence that you'll find the truth if you don't stop thinking is in opposition to that so who knows)

Also...the forgeries are already guaranteed fantasies anyway, other than EP3, considering that Eva dies in all of them.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-05, 12:11

I wouldn't say that Umineko's approach to the problem is perfect in the slightest, though I would say that all questions have been sufficiently answered and everything beyond that would just defeat the purpose of Umineko and destroy the effect he wanted to reach.
He wants people to be able to continue writing message bottles for example. If knowledge about who died how spread wide enough those stories would cease to be possibilities and become mere fantasies...that's the problem of giving a definitive answer.

This isn't a legitimate excuse. People already write marvelous Forgeries that have no basis in reality, such as Kinjo's games, which don't even pretend to be the truth. However, they are still wondrous mysteries and stories besides, and Ryukishi isn't ignorant of this since he used to host similar fan Forgeries on his website.

Really, I know I have been attacked often enough for claiming this, but how is it a sign of "caring" or "empathizing" to want to know how a person died? It is either an act of self-assurement or a displacement of personal pain by watching the pain of others. What do we gain by knowing anything beyond the fact that they did die? And I don't play at a superficial answer like, "it is the solution to the mystery of Prime"....I want to know what we gain for the story as a whole, on a broader level.

You must have never lost a loved one to ambiguous causes. It gives CLOSURE. I mean, goddamn, look at Ange. If the truth doesn't come out, she doesn't know if her loved ones were alive or not, which of them is responsible for taking them all away from her, whether or not her parents and brother were worth her love to the end, and WHY her entire family were robbed from her.

It is a deep sign of love, empathy, and self-investment to want to know why a precious person was taken from you, and the series does a very good job of making the family important to you emotionally. I know at one particularly emotional point in my life during my reading, I proclaimed, "If Umineko doesn't have a happy ending I might never be happy again."

Kealym

2012-06-05, 13:05

Really, I know I have been attacked often enough for claiming this, but how is it a sign of "caring" or "empathizing" to want to know how a person died? It is either an act of self-assurement or a displacement of personal pain by watching the pain of others. What do we gain by knowing anything beyond the fact that they did die? And I don't play at a superficial answer like, "it is the solution to the mystery of Prime"....I want to know what we gain for the story as a whole, on a broader level.

As Aura says, it's about closure. It is generally considered a good sign when your readership sincerely cared about the fate of your characters. And ye gods, I spent 3 years really really hoping some Hanyuu bullcrap would come out nowhere and give the Ushiromiya's a happy Oct. 6th.

Still, even if it's a bit morbid, you'd want to know for certain, right, the way someone's life ended? Was it deserved? Meaningless? Peaceful? There's a world of difference between "George blew up while in the middle of a fun picnic with his cousins because of an electrical surge." and "George was shot repeatedly shot in the stomach by his uncle because lol-Kyrie". :uhoh:

Renall

2012-06-05, 13:18

That aside, that information is kind of important to society. If someone was a criminal, society demands that information be known. If it was an accident, society dictates that should be revealed so people can stop idle gossip about it and let it fade. It's a matter of justice and social decorum, and attempting to hide it is a social faux pas. You could say any given individual may have no right to know, but "society" on the whole essentially does, if only to settle all accounts and exonerate those who did nothing wrong in the eyes of those who remain.

There's a reason journalists and historians are sometimes unpopular or viewed as nosy and insensitive. But there's also a reason our society values their work. And for a journalist interested in unlocking the historical mystery of what happened that weekend in 1986, it's pretty disappointing to know that someone is actively impeding your earnest search for the truth just because some people might judge too harshly.

TwilightsCall

2012-06-05, 14:25

Renall

2012-06-05, 15:37

AuraTwilight

2012-06-05, 15:47

I'm curious what everyone who thinks that the truth of Prime should be made known think about the feelings of those who survived the disaster. I understand your points as to why it should be made known, but considering Eva spent her entire life trying to conceal the truth of the events, and that Battler clearly had no desire to explain what had happened, and Hachijo - who KNEW what had happened thought it was for the better not to tell anyone else, I feel like demanding to know the truth for 'the sake of society' is just trampling on the feelings of those who had to experience the event themselves.

Hachijou doesn't know shit. She deliberately chose NOT to look in Eva's diary, and thus doesn't know any better than anyone else.

And what about the families of the dead? What about the people who's lives are effected by the event? Eva might be noble for what she did, but she's also WRONG, because ultimately all it did was destroy her own life and severely wound Ange's.

Because Ange was denied the truth, she never made any friends and spent her childhood and adolescence miserably and clinging to fantasy as escapism. Because he feared the truth, an amnesiac man resisted his memory and only surviving family in a self-destructive fashion.

The hiding of the truth has done nothing to hurt people, and there is no reason to keep hiding it aside from fear; but when the truth is revealed, that fear will disappear; even if what they feared comes true, it can be dealt with. Knowing for sure that your parents were evil is much easier to deal with and put behind you than the eternal uncertainty of "could I ever trust my family?"

But also, I'm pretty sure in-world Eva told people that everything that happened was an accident.

She said no such thing. The media came to that conclusion because there's no evidence for anything, so it'd be severely irresponsible to put the blame on anyone involved.

This is what the press and the police were told, so if they choose to willingly not believe Eva, who was personally there, they are just denying themselves the closure they want so badly. While Eva's position might be suspicious considering what she stood to gain from everyone else dieing, I don't think you can complain about not knowing what happened when someone TOLD you what happened and you willingly decided to not believe them.

Eva never said that, and even if she did she would be lying. What the hell is wrong with not believing in a liar? It's not 'closure' if you just accept a comfortable lie. Maria, Ange, and Yasu all tried that and all three of them were hurt by it.

As far as the 'society deserves to know' argument, I don't really agree. The only reason the general public would care about what happened would be out of curiosity, which is hardly a good enough reason to disregard the feelings of the survivors. As far as a sense of societal justice being needed, the police were fully allowed to, and did, investigate to their heart's content on the island. I know there wasn't much left to investigate, but again once you get to that point where there is no hard evidence and you willfully ignore the testimony of the survivors, you are kind of dooming yourself to never know the answer.

There is a boat captain who blames himself for being unable to save them when it can turn out he was never able to do anything. That truth would set him free.

Nanjo's son went through life forever wondering if his father was a criminal.

Jessica's friends were all robbed of someone radiant and special to them, and it certainly spoiled the rest of their high school lives at best, depending on how close she was to them.

Asumu's relatives, thinking Battler is their own blood, will die never knowing what happened to him, and always mourning him like Asumu herself.

And among all of this, these people have to deal with hobbyists using the tragedy as entertainment, speculating and villainifying whoever they please. Unless the truth comes out, ALL EIGHTEEN OF THEM ARE TREATED AS POTENTIAL MURDERERS. Only if the truth comes out can THE OTHER SEVENTEEN BE EXONERATED AS INNOCENT.

You are ignoring everyone involved here who isn't a Witch Hunter. Why should the loud minority damn everyone else involved in this mess? Why should the 9/11 "Inside Job" conspiracists doom the families of everyone who died in the incident, to use an analogy?

Hiding the truth is evil.

The only way I could see it being justified that anyone would need to know the truth of what happened was if it was all some incident perpetrated by Battler (since we know Eva isn't the culprit.) Otherwise, exhonerating or condemning the dead is meaningless: there's nothing you could do to punish them if they were guilty, and if you really wanted to exhonerate them, just believe what Eva says. She says it was an accident, and there is no one who can provide proof that she's lieing (aside from obviously herself and Battler), so there is really no 'good' reason for the public at large to not believe her aside from 'she's suspicious cause she benefited from it.' People benefit from deaths all the time, not very many of those are murders.

Again, Eva didn't say that, and even if she didn't, her word doesn't prove anything. That's not exoneration.

And there is worth in condemning and exonerating the dead. The memories of the lost is important to history and to the people left behind. Is Maria an inspiration worth emulating, like Ange felt, or is she a deluded child to be pitied? This effects people's lives.

Is George a loving fiance who died heroically, or was he some psychotic, loser obsessive who might've killed everyone in a fit of madness? This effects people's lives.

Rokkenjima doesn't exist in a fucking vacuum. All of these people HAD LIVES IN JAPAN THAT EFFECTED HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY.

The reputation of Rosa can doom her entire fucking company. The Rokkenjima conspiracy theorists could have put her firm out of business due to bad publicity. But if Rosa were innocent and the truth was open from the beginning, this wouldn't of happened.

God fucking dammit, none of you give a shit about any of these people, do you? I would hate for these apologists to actually give their opinions on real-world tragedies.

jjblue1

2012-06-05, 17:29

A funny thing that came to my mind is that in Ange's world there's not red truth and that, appanrently, no truth could be proved about the Rokkenjima incident due to the island being destroyed.
So even if Eva, Battler or Yasu or whoever else were to say the truth... well, it would be the truth only as long as people were to accept it as truth.
Sure, for us readers it would be the TRUTH and, in mysteries, the truth of a confession or that the detective found is always accepted as the TRUTH (No one goes around saying: hey, but maybe Hercule Poirot was wrong...) but, in Ange's world, we can't even prove that what Eva wrote in her diary is the TRUTH and not her own perception of the truth.

This for me means that, even if the truth were to be told/discovered, unless there were absolute proof it is the TRUTH... well, it would have a meaning only as long as it is accepted.

Assuming that knowing the TRUTH would bring relief or closure or whatever, Kuwabata, the police and the families of the others involved would have a chance to find relief from the TRUTH being revealed only if it could be proved is the TRUTH or if they were to accept it as such.

If the TRUTH can't be proved and we've to rely only on acceptance of it we're already provided with more possible canon truths: it was all an accident (the official truth), it was Eva doing (Ange's truth), it was Kyrie and Rudolf and possibly Battler doing (Witch hunters' last trend about the Rokkenjima truth). We can come up with more, one of them can even be true but, as long as it can't be proved, in Ange's world this will never become a red truth.

Without proof the world becomes the equivalent of the tribunal of witches of EP 5.
Erika's explanation seemed to make sense but we know it wasn't the TRUTH.
Battler's explanation too made sense but again, it wasn't the TRUTH.
Ep 5 doesn't really paint the tribunal of witches as a good thing but that's just because Erika is a jerk and we know Natsuhi is innocent.

So I'm not saying the TRUTH of Rokkenjima is meaningless, just that, if it couldn't be proved it is the TRUTH, it's on the same level as saying everything was caused by an accidental explosion.

As far as I'm involved I think this is the point Ryukishi is trying to make not giving us a clear answer for Prime. Prime is anti-mystery or purpose, opposed to the game boards that are mystery. Prime can't be solved though people can make educate guesses about what had happened. It's like forcing a parallel between reality and fiction.

Now, there are tales that deal with murders that are and will stay unresolved even if maybe the main character is trying to solve them and they're perfectly legittimate tales.
The point however is that they aren't in the 'murder mystery' section. If written well, readers won't read them expecting a solution, they would read them focusing on whatever is going on with the main character and how he's dealing with it. He is the 'mystery' so to speak, and the readers want to know what he'll do when he discovers the truth or when he'll discover he can't discover the truth, the truth in itself being of little importance compared to the mystery of his future actions.

Umineko however, as far as I'm involved, failed to handle well this part.

Prime's mystery seems much more interesting than 'how Ange will deal with everything' mystery, which, by the way, is not even properly addressed as we've 2 solutions for it and we can chose which one we prefer, moving the whole mystery to 'how the readers will deal with the tale presented' but, ironically, not offering us an 'answer' that will match with the state of who's frustrate there's no answer and wants to continue seeking the truth or wanted the truth to be known by the others.

So... no, I'm not against the general idea behind the ending of Umineko... but I think it was handled poorly, at least as far as I'm involved. While the mystery of the tragedy is the main focus of all the episodes Ange's role is much more marginal and therefore a lot less interesting for me. For my own tastes she wasn't even THAT interesting to make her shine so that, in my books, her fate would be more important than the mystery of Rokkenjima.

GreyZone

2012-06-05, 17:38

jjblue1

2012-06-05, 17:48

I still wonder about R07, saying that if you try hard enough you find the truth (and similar comments). Were those about the Gameboards or about R-Prime? That is a BIG difference after all. But I am not very sure about that.

If they're about the Gameboard... well I guess he's right. If they're about Prime I think the truth he means might not be the TRUTH but just a theory we accepted as the truth... sort of like Ange who apparently refused the truth's of Eva's diary and found her own truth. Which, luckily for her was true (Battler was still alive after all), but actually might have been falze or she might have never discovered it was true (let's assume Battler never recovered his memory).

This gives to the words 'finding the truth' a rather different meaning from the one many of us would expect. Actually in this prospective the truth seems more like something philosophical... like chosing if God exists or not. A personal truth opposed to the TRUTH... and while I've nothing against personal truths well, honestly I would have preferred if Umineko had handed us THE TRUTH.

But that's just me.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-05, 19:24

So I'm not saying the TRUTH of Rokkenjima is meaningless, just that, if it couldn't be proved it is the TRUTH, it's on the same level as saying everything was caused by an accidental explosion.

There's a huge difference if three people make the same story and it's collaborated by data such as from Maria's diary and the police reports and whatnot. Just sayin'.

I still wonder about R07, saying that if you try hard enough you find the truth (and similar comments). Were those about the Gameboards or about R-Prime? That is a BIG difference after all. But I am not very sure about that.

He's never specified, and kind of goes back and forth about it in the same breath. He never once makes a verbal distinction between the gameboards and Prime, only speaking about 'the truth'. If we misinterpreted his intentions, it's completely an inarguably 100% his fault.

Renall

2012-06-06, 09:02

I don't think he's ever officially committed to the idea of an existence of a "Prime" universe. I don't know what the Japanese fanbase even calls such a thing, if they even have a term for it, but I'm sure they're aware of the general idea.

But as the author, he hasn't to my knowledge gone so far as to actually suggest there is a "real world" at all. Oh, he's shown Ikuko and stuff, but he hasn't entirely gotten in bed with the idea that she lives in a Prime universe and that the Ikuko he's shown us is Ikuko-Prime to begin with. Hence my joke theory that everything is in Meta-Touya's mind, Ikuko has been Featherine the whole time, and Rokkenjima and everything associated with it didn't exist until Touya started inventing it under Featherine's direction.

GreyZone

2012-06-06, 09:18

[...]
K I think there is about the same amount of people saying „I want to know the truth of the gameboard“, as there are those asking „What is the truth of the real world“. After EP7 had already revealed so much of the truth, many might have expected EP8 to step even further into the real world, and they were quite surprised when it took this, might I even call it ambiguous direction of locking up the catbox.

R Because I slightly started giving an objective view in EP7, there might have been many expecting more of it. But I thought I gave out enough pieces by then to start an interpretation. I really thought that I had given an excessive amount of pieces. Even now when saying „there has been an excess of pieces“, I don’t want to go out and blurt out some kind of answer and forcing it onto you. I might have said it during interviews again and again, I absolutely never wanted to do a story where you could just fill in a solution via copy and paste.

K You said that many times after we had our discussion after the main arcs.

R Because this is the internet-age, somebody could just upload a clear screenshot, or if not that just copy and paste the answer all over the place, is what I thought. People seeing that would just say „Is that so?!“ and dismiss the whole story with that, and that wouldn’t be fun at all. That’s why I created a way to reveal everything in a way that could not be copied and pasted. To those who think about it clearly, it all becomes clear as daylight. I would like it to become a work for which you can say that again and again even after some years have passed. But for those who expected there to be a clear answer at the end, it might have been quite a surprise ending. But for me it had already been decided from the start that there would be an ending like this.
[...]

Hmm..... His answer was very... abstract.

So he said we should have been able to "start an interpretation" by EP7.... which mean we could find the answer by completly disregarding EP8, if I understood that right.

Well there was forshadowing about Battler's survival in EP6 about Ange saying "I thought Tohya is a young man"...

So to get the facts together, we know for certain about Prime:

-Eva and Battler survived (depending on your opinion, Yasu could have too)
-Eva was found in Kuwadorian
-Eva claimed the explosion was an accident
-Eva had the head's ring.
-The "first two stories", probably Legend and Turn, were found as message bottles
-Banquet was definitly written by the Hachijos, it was implied that Alliance and End were too
-It's possible Dawn was written by them as well
-It is not sure, if Requiem and/or Twilight even exist in the prime world
-Ange "disappeard" shortly after Eva's death
-Ikuko claimed she would reveal the truth, but then "decided against it", in the last moment (needs EP8)
-It isn't sure whether the book of one truth really exists or not (needs EP8)
-It is not known to the public, that Tohya is in fact Battler

Well i guess that's about it for information on prime

Thunder Book

2012-06-06, 10:19

Is the thing about Maria's jaw being partially found true to Prime? What about the various people Ange met in Episode 4, like Nanjo's son and Kumasawa's son (And how they received money)?

Jan-Poo

2012-06-06, 10:39

-Eva claimed the explosion was an accident

Did she?
All we know is that she never wanted to say what happened on those two days. We don't know if she made any kind of statement at all about the "incident".
I think, however, that is moderately safe to assume the official media reported it as an incident and not as a crime, due to the fact that Nanjo jr said that only irresponsible magazines claim it was a crime and Okonogi saying that he'd get in trouble if he called it a crime.

There are other informations that might be useful:

-The maker of the head's ring confirmed its authenticity
-Beatrice's portrait was commissioned to an artist and he still has the picture he used as a reference.
-there are witnesses who heard Kinzo claiming there was a bomb in Rokkenjima that would explode at midnight
-The Rokkenjima incident happened at midnight, and it is suggested that it happened exactly at midnight.
-It can be inferred that the explosion destroyed a big chunk of the island including the port, the Mansion and any nearby building.
-practically no discernible remain was left to identify the corpses with the sole exception of Maria's jaw.
-Kawabata's testimony supports the claim that a woman lived in Kuwadorian until about 1967 (not certain if this is common knowledge)
-Rokkenjima was originally a secret military base and the submarine port still exists (not certain if this is common knowledge)
-several letters were sent the day before of the family meeting in a way that they would end to the relatives of the victims. The letters included keys and code to access a big amount of money (not common knowledge)
-The handwriting of the messages is the same found in Maria's diary writing as "Beatrice" (not common knowledge)

We have absolutely no way to tell with certainty that these informations are real since some were acquired from imcompatible scenarios.

GreyZone

2012-06-06, 10:48

Well I tried to only take it out of the narration of EP3TP/"???" (or beginning EP4, not sure which it was) and of EP8"???".

Ange's story in EP4 is probably fictional, if we believe the magic ending, so information from it may be wrong. On the other hand if it was just 1 big illusion, there would be no point to add it (chekovs gun).

But I think the points you state are valid.

About Eva claiming it was an accident.... that was because people started saying it here yesterday and i just accepted that. But now that you mention it, yes, I cannot remember that anyone in the story said that "she claimed it was an accident".

Kealym

2012-06-06, 17:35

Is the thing about Maria's jaw being partially found true to Prime? What about the various people Ange met in Episode 4, like Nanjo's son and Kumasawa's son (And how they received money)?

My personal inclination is that though Ange probably didn't REALLY have her EP4 misadventure. But as per Ryukishi's intention to share "information from outside the gameboards", what she found was probably true, including the letter money, the Sakutarou's, and sure-why-not, the lol-Kasumi murder potential.

Witch of Uncertainty

2012-06-06, 17:59

Remember that the first time Ange asked Eva, she answered "I cannot tell you that", while she later just stated that she couldn't remember. Also, Kyrie and Rudolf thanks Eva in the Halloween party for not telling Ange the truth.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-06, 19:44

My personal inclination is that though Ange probably didn't REALLY have her EP4 misadventure. But as per Ryukishi's intention to share "information from outside the gameboards", what she found was probably true, including the letter money, the Sakutarou's, and sure-why-not, the lol-Kasumi murder potential.

I have the same opinion, even if it didn't happen in the "true ending", all that happened in EP4 also happened in the "trick ending" which mean that as one of the possible future it's as real as the other.

However, as I said, you can't be sure of anything in Umineko. Ryuukishi made things even more complicated with the Ange in EP6, where we are shown a 1998 that doesn't fit with the EP8 endings.

haguruma

2012-06-07, 11:49

Hiding the truth is evil.
I counter, revealing the truth can be just as destructive.
It is a matter of how truth is handled and Umineko never made the point "knowing the truth is bad" it simply went for "there are truths that are to delicate to be revealed without care".
If Ange actually revealed the whole truth then everything would go to hell. Captain Kawabata would be arrested for or at last accused of aiding Kinzô in keeping his daughter hostage and without proper education.
The money given to the families and the Ushiromiya fortune would probably be confiscated as it was gained from illegal sources (stolen gold).
The Nanjô clinic would probably go out of business when it was revealed that the father of the current chief of medicine and former chief of medicine was aiding Kinzo during the incestuous birth of his daughter and concealing said daughters death.
Heck, Nanjo's son, Kumasawa's son...even Ange could likely be arrested for not notifying the police about the mysterious cash in the bank vaults they received keys for.
etc.

[quote]God fucking dammit, none of you give a shit about any of these people, do you? I would hate for these apologists to actually give their opinions on real-world tragedies.
Do you really think that every real life tragedy is ever fully revealed to us in all details? Maybe the English government did for example conceal the identity of Jack the Ripper to keep a political scandal from happening.
Is it just to do that? No, but it is understandable under the given circumstances.

And the problem is that the story makes it very likely to assume that negative consequences would result from revealing the truth. It is rather that making the truth seemingly unreachable, like Ikuko did in the end, was the only chance to actually kill the buzz around the tragedy. She killed her own fame and therefore the likelihood of any Witch Hunter to be right...so she killed the movement.

I have the same opinion, even if it didn't happen in the "true ending", all that happened in EP4 also happened in the "trick ending" which mean that as one of the possible future it's as real as the other.
At least it has a potential of being true. Again it's all about probability and how likely an event can happen. The likelihood of the events of EP4 happening was probably upped by about 200% and Kasumi made 500% more vile than she actually was...but it was possible. That's what all Umineko is about, considering the probability of an event and working from there.
Only a world where everybody else is dead is a secure world...that is the way Ange lives in the trick ending.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-07, 12:13

Only a world where everybody else is dead is a secure world...that is the way Ange lives in the trick ending.

That's quite a shortsighted idea unless you have the power to kill everyone instantly. A world where you kill people at random is a lot less secure than a world where you respect the rules.

Renall

2012-06-07, 12:35

I counter, revealing the truth can be just as destructive.
It is a matter of how truth is handled and Umineko never made the point "knowing the truth is bad" it simply went for "there are truths that are to delicate to be revealed without care".
If Ange actually revealed the whole truth then everything would go to hell. Captain Kawabata would be arrested for or at last accused of aiding Kinzô in keeping his daughter hostage and without proper education.
The money given to the families and the Ushiromiya fortune would probably be confiscated as it was gained from illegal sources (stolen gold).
The Nanjô clinic would probably go out of business when it was revealed that the father of the current chief of medicine and former chief of medicine was aiding Kinzo during the incestuous birth of his daughter and concealing said daughters death.
Heck, Nanjo's son, Kumasawa's son...even Ange could likely be arrested for not notifying the police about the mysterious cash in the bank vaults they received keys for.
etc.Have you considered that all of those things are things which perhaps ought to happen? If true, most of what you said is probably right: Kawabata assisted in kidnapping, Kinzo was a thief, Nanjo was a bad doctor, and Nanjo and Kumasawa's sons are concealing evidence from police. If that is indeed the truth, is it suddenly wrong for them to face the just consequences of their immoral actions? Is it wrong that the Ushiromiya fortune, which was built on murder and fraud, be reduced to what it always was: Nothing?

Nobody said (or nobody should be saying) that the truth cannot be harmful. Indeed, a premise of the whole "stop hiding the truth from Ange" thing is that there's little question it probably will be harmful, and it is harmful, but the truth is better in the end because truth is what truth is and once it is known it doesn't go back.

Uncertainty is more harmful than truth, but even if it were not, truth is morally superior to uncertainty and thus the default is that it needs to be known and it needs to be revealed.

You seem to be taking a consequentialist view that "if hiding one unpleasant truth minimizes the harm to others, we should accept the concealment or at least agree that it should be breached with care." I flatly reject this. I believe that such a decision is one which we cannot universalize because we lack the faculties necessary to determine when it may be permissible, and that in general truth causes no harm to the innocent.

I grant that truth can cause harm to Ange, but I would argue that's a result of prior moral failings on behalf of individuals and not because "the truth is painful." The truth is painful because someone (presumably) acted immorally. Though it may cause distress to her or to other individuals to learn that other people behaved immorally, it is ultimately better to know that some individuals were moral and others were immoral than to suspect that some or all individuals were immoral without sufficient reason (as, after all, we do not want to universalize the notion that anyone whose actions we don't know about should be thought of as having acted immorally). How someone should react to that information is their own decision. Ange chooses to be hurt by the truth, it doesn't hurt her. Revealing the truth is good.

The only person who fails morally but acts with good intentions is Eva, so I'm inclined so say she was wrong but forgivably so, because she believed (wrongly) that she had a duty to Ange which was higher than her duty to truth.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-07, 13:52

I counter, revealing the truth can be just as destructive.
It is a matter of how truth is handled and Umineko never made the point "knowing the truth is bad" it simply went for "there are truths that are to delicate to be revealed without care".
If Ange actually revealed the whole truth then everything would go to hell. Captain Kawabata would be arrested for or at last accused of aiding Kinzô in keeping his daughter hostage and without proper education.
The money given to the families and the Ushiromiya fortune would probably be confiscated as it was gained from illegal sources (stolen gold).
The Nanjô clinic would probably go out of business when it was revealed that the father of the current chief of medicine and former chief of medicine was aiding Kinzo during the incestuous birth of his daughter and concealing said daughters death.
Heck, Nanjo's son, Kumasawa's son...even Ange could likely be arrested for not notifying the police about the mysterious cash in the bank vaults they received keys for.
etc.

Of all of those, only the possibility of Kawabata being arrested and the money in the vaults being confiscated is even remotely likely. If Nanjo's business didn't go under from all the bad publicity from speculating, I doubt the confirmation would make things any worse. And the Japanese Justice Department wouldn't arrest people like Ange or Nanjo's son because they didn't know where that money came from. Ange's inheritance also wouldn't be confiscated because it's all technically Eva's hard-earned money.

Do you really think that every real life tragedy is ever fully revealed to us in all details? Maybe the English government did for example conceal the identity of Jack the Ripper to keep a political scandal from happening.
Is it just to do that? No, but it is understandable under the given circumstances.

It's also fucking wrong. Is that supposed to make me feel better? Are you now applying apologetics to the English government inadvertently protecting a serial killer?

And the problem is that the story makes it very likely to assume that negative consequences would result from revealing the truth. It is rather that making the truth seemingly unreachable, like Ikuko did in the end, was the only chance to actually kill the buzz around the tragedy. She killed her own fame and therefore the likelihood of any Witch Hunter to be right...so she killed the movement.

But how did that work, exactly? Ikuko doesn't reveal the truth and is discredited as being valid so....the speculations and the entire hobby stops? She's not the only Forgery writer. What the hell?

Ryukishi just wanted to have his cake and eat it too and decided to hand wave the issue without putting any thought into it.

At least it has a potential of being true. Again it's all about probability and how likely an event can happen. The likelihood of the events of EP4 happening was probably upped by about 200% and Kasumi made 500% more vile than she actually was...but it was possible. That's what all Umineko is about, considering the probability of an event and working from there.
Only a world where everybody else is dead is a secure world...that is the way Ange lives in the trick ending.

Secure doesn't mean happy.

The only person who fails morally but acts with good intentions is Eva, so I'm inclined so say she was wrong but forgivably so, because she believed (wrongly) that she had a duty to Ange which was higher than her duty to truth.

And to add onto this, Eva's decision destroyed her entire life and her relationship with Ange. They probably could've become a very loving and happy family if they were able to put this Rokkenjima mess behind them. Eva had a god-awful life and after the Incident, she really only had herself to blame. The truth could've set her, Ange, and their dead family members free.

Renall

2012-06-07, 14:43

Even if it hadn't, it's better to be right than to be respected. Telling Ange the truth may have made their relationship better, and may have made it worse. But it's better she tells her the truth from a position of compassion than to allow people to use truth (or the appearance of truth) as a weapon against Ange psychologically... which is exactly what people like Bernkastel do.

Say the worst case was true and Rudolf and Kyrie did kill everybody. That's bad. But if Ange knows it, "WHAT IF YOUR PARENTS DID IT!?" stops being a weapon that can stab at her heart. She'll have to accept that truth and decide what to do about it. One way or another, wielding truth or speculation with ill intentions ceases to have value once the actual truth is known. It'd just be better if someone who cared told her in a manner that she could gradually come to understand and appreciate, rather than hearing it from people who wish her ill. She'd be able to say to those people "I know. So what?" If anything that's where Eva dropped the ball.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-07, 15:30

Exactly. That's why the truth has to be released publically. The truth is neutral, but speculation can be malicious. Ange can COPE with the Truth; Yukari's existence proves that. She can't cope with the unknown.

And Ange isn't unique. A shitload of other people who should be just as important as Ange are neglected because they're not on-screen. Will Gohda's mother ever be able to move on? Must Nanjo's son forever wonder if his father was a murderer or a crook?

Someone brought up that Nanjo's clinic could've been shut down if the Truth came out, but what about the companies that were probably shut down because the truth didn't come out, like Rosa's fashion company? More people worked for her firm than Nanjo's fucking one-man doctor clinic. If we're going to weigh things by purely consequentialist measures, than way more people are put in unemployment than if the truth did come out.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-07, 16:47

Say the worst case was true and Rudolf and Kyrie did kill everybody. That's bad. But if Ange knows it, "WHAT IF YOUR PARENTS DID IT!?" stops being a weapon that can stab at her heart. She'll have to accept that truth and decide what to do about it. One way or another, wielding truth or speculation with ill intentions ceases to have value once the actual truth is known. It'd just be better if someone who cared told her in a manner that she could gradually come to understand and appreciate, rather than hearing it from people who wish her ill. She'd be able to say to those people "I know. So what?" If anything that's where Eva dropped the ball.

Though I agree with that, it would be a little hard to explain that to a six year old child, and would end up making more harm than good. The right thing would probably be to tell her when she was older, but their relationship had already become strained by then.

Exactly. That's why the truth has to be released publically. The truth is neutral, but speculation can be malicious.

That is the public's fault for speculating all sorts of things for an incident that does not concern them in the slightest little bit! Most people's interest in Rokenjima's incident was plainly curiosity, so why would Eva have to render accounts to all those people who labelled her as a criminal just out of plane curiosity?

Ange can COPE with the Truth; Yukari's existence proves that. She can't cope with the unknown.

Solid as this argument may be, there are all sorts of over-protective parents, Eva was just one of them.

And Ange isn't unique. A shitload of other people who should be just as important as Ange are neglected because they're not on-screen. Will Gohda's mother ever be able to move on? Must Nanjo's son forever wonder if his father was a murderer or a crook?

Well, to be perfectly fair she lost her entire family and was deprived of her childhood (I doubt anyone could have a proper one after such an incident).

Though, of course, it is not possible or ethic to put measures in the pain of people. I guess all those questions are just a different story. Shit like that often happens when you add characters who are only to appear for one scene or so.

That's quite a shortsighted idea unless you have the power to kill everyone instantly. A world where you kill people at random is a lot less secure than a world where you respect the rules.

I think the point there was that Ange clings onto seeking the one truth about everything so much that she is incapable of trusting any words that aren't red, meaning, she cannot love, since there is absolutely no way to prove such a thing by human means.

Klashikari

2012-06-07, 17:06

...I'm sorry to barge "again" like that, but at this point, would it be preferable to leave people their own take of the "meaning of the end"?
Frankly, the polarizing discussion about it for a year and half plainly demonstrates it is way more a matter of opinion and perspective than really "one single definition" of it, a bit similar to the truth to put it blunty, and that's probably what Ryukishi tried to do, as he does leave things to people interpretation.

Past that, it is absolutely going nowhere, and whilst I do encourage discussions about X or Y stuff and debates, this peculiar subject is just tiring, borderline sterile (this is true for both sides). So, while I understand the ending is a huge chunk of Episode 8, it is just not cutting it on the long run.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-07, 18:35

That is the public's fault for speculating all sorts of things for an incident that does not concern them in the slightest little bit! Most people's interest in Rokenjima's incident was plainly curiosity, so why would Eva have to render accounts to all those people who labelled her as a criminal just out of plane curiosity?

Well, they pretty much ruined Ange's life and emotional health. She could've stopped all that with a simple public statement.

Solid as this argument may be, there are all sorts of over-protective parents, Eva was just one of them.

You're right, but Ryukishi treats Eva's decision as the morally correct path. Which is entirely different. If Eva, BATTLER, Beatrice, and all those guys were shown to be mistaken, and Ikuko DIDN'T decide to keep her mouth shut...or if she did and a neutral narrator criticized her for it atleast...

Well, to be perfectly fair she lost her entire family and was deprived of her childhood (I doubt anyone could have a proper one after such an incident).

Though, of course, it is not possible or ethic to put measures in the pain of people. I guess all those questions are just a different story. Shit like that often happens when you add characters who are only to appear for one scene or so.

I just feel like it's sort of messed up when people treat things like Ange's suffering is all that matters, and that she should be the only one who gets to decide if she learns the truth and shares it with other people.

It's precisely because you can't put a measure on people's pain that it's not right to give her priority like that.

I think the point there was that Ange clings onto seeking the one truth about everything so much that she is incapable of trusting any words that aren't red, meaning, she cannot love, since there is absolutely no way to prove such a thing by human means.

She got like that after years of being denied the truth by the people who were supposed to be her loved ones, INCLUDING her brother in EP8. I don't think we can blame her, and it's certainly not accurate to say she can't love because of it.

This is another thing that sort of bugs me. Ryukishi keeps equating 'love' to something like 'faith', and that's just messed up.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-07, 18:49

I think the point there was that Ange clings onto seeking the one truth about everything so much that she is incapable of trusting any words that aren't red, meaning, she cannot love, since there is absolutely no way to prove such a thing by human means.

That's not what I was debating.

At any rate there is much more that had to be going wrong in Ange's head to do what she did than the simple desire of knowing the truth and the refusal of lies.

Wants to know the truth -> disbelieves everything -> cannot love -> loses any morality and human emphaty -> begins finding pleasure in troubling people -> kills everyone who is or might be in her path.

That's a big chain of non sequiturs.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-08, 00:53

This is another thing that sort of bugs me. Ryukishi keeps equating 'love' to something like 'faith', and that's just messed up.

He's not completely 'equating' them, actually...What he says is something like the following: How can you be sure that a person you love loves you back? Well, you can't if you don't have faith, since there is no physical evidence suggesting the other person's feelings are truthful, or even if there was, you can never be sure what is going on inside other people. Frankly put, love is an illusion that comes true when both sides perceive it.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-08, 01:04

He's not completely 'equating' them, actually...What he says is something like the following: How can you be sure that a person you love loves you back? Well, you can't if you don't have faith, since there is no physical evidence suggesting the other person's feelings are truthful, or even if there was, you can never be sure what is going on inside other people. Frankly put, love is an illusion that comes true when both sides perceive it.

Yea, well, fuck that. You can be pretty damn sure if someone loves you through their actions.

My boyfriend proposed his love to me by mailing me a cake that spelled "I LOVE YOU" out in strawberries, based on a comment I made about my favorite food from half a year ago I didn't even remember making.

Then he abandoned his entire life and family in his old area to move to where I was because we thought I was dying, and he wanted to spend the rest of my short life with me. When I got better, that 'short life' became 'long life', and he continuously does heroic, knightly, loving things for me that demonstrates that I'm on his thoughts constantly.

Fuck Ryukishi's definition of love, fuck the Red Truth, fuck the Blue Truth, and fuck illusions. I know when someone loves me. I don't have to take it on 'faith', 'trust', or 'a good guess'. This man has taken me on a planeride to show a garden of roses spelling out our names inside a heart from a bird's eye view. He loves me.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-08, 06:51

He's not completely 'equating' them, actually...What he says is something like the following: How can you be sure that a person you love loves you back? Well, you can't if you don't have faith, since there is no physical evidence suggesting the other person's feelings are truthful, or even if there was, you can never be sure what is going on inside other people. Frankly put, love is an illusion that comes true when both sides perceive it.

Well... apart from Aura's tangent... you can't be absolutely certain that someone loves you, but if you were to take that a purely philosophical concept you can't be absolutely certain about a damn nothing. Including that someone doesn't love you.

Ange in the trick ending didn't simply reach a status where she disbelieved anything as it's proper of a skeptic.
She decided that in doubt, no matter how little doubt it was, it was always best to assume the worst scenario.

Apart from the fact that "lack of absolute certainty" doesn't equate "everything is equally possible"
This isn't skepticism, this is paranoia.

A better approach would be to act on the assumption that the truth is the one that's most probable, and when someone tells he loves you, acts like someone who loves you, and talks like someone who loves you and there is no valid reason to think he'd fake it all, well you should assume that he loves you not the opposite.
There is no need to have blind faith, which would cause you to still believe you're loved even when your partner gave clear signs of wanting to break up.

Also, there is no need to be loved in return to love.

RandomAvatarFan

2012-06-08, 08:11

There were many things found in his room... There were many things found in my room... Nothing was found in her room...

Captain Bluebeard

2012-06-08, 08:22

Fuck Ryukishi's definition of love, fuck the Red Truth, fuck the Blue Truth, and fuck illusions. I know when someone loves me. I don't have to take it on 'faith', 'trust', or 'a good guess'. This man has taken me on a planeride to show a garden of roses spelling out our names inside a heart from a bird's eye view. He loves me.

Congrats, your man's a knight. Clearly, there is no need for red truths here, as love is not something that you need to see with your eyes. To put it with the words of a different author, 'the eyes of the heart are more reliable than your actual eyes'.

A better approach would be to act on the assumption that the truth is the one that's most probable, and when someone tells he loves you, acts like someone who loves you, and talks like someone who loves you and there is no valid reason to think he'd fake it all, well you should assume that he loves you not the opposite.

Which is the point that I was making that this is Ange's error in the first place.

There is no need to have blind faith, which would cause you to still believe you're loved even when your partner gave clear signs of wanting to break up.

I guess 'faith' was the wrong word here. Maybe that should be 'love'. Ange lacks 'love', so she can't trust words that aren't red. Clearly, the scene were she shoots the shit out of Amakusa and Kawabata was symbolic and is only absurd if interpreted in a completely literal fashion.

Also, there is no need to be loved in return to love.

It's not like I disagree but...What does that have to do with anything?

Renall

2012-06-08, 08:49

It's not like I disagree but...What does that have to do with anything?Well, at least in the context of Erika's thoughts on the matter, the notion that she might not be loved back seemed more important to her than why she loved someone. Actually, I'm not even sure we know why she loved him.

From Ange's perspective, I think the idea is that as a character she's wanted certainty, but a particular kind of certainty. She hasn't gotten that certainty, so she doesn't know how to react: Does she doubt everything if she can't get the reality she wants, or does she find some way to adjust to the fact that what she doesn't know is something she may never be able to change?

Erika's situation was similar. She wanted to believe she was loved (because that, apparently, was far more important to her), but since she couldn't find anything definitive, she preferred the certainty she invented to eternal doubt. Ange seems to have a harder time committing to that line of thinking anywhere but the Trick ending.

How exactly that relates back to magic is a little muddier, but obviously people have provided explanations for that.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-08, 10:12

Erika's situation was similar. She wanted to believe she was loved (because that, apparently, was far more important to her), but since she couldn't find anything definitive, she preferred the certainty she invented to eternal doubt. Ange seems to have a harder time committing to that line of thinking anywhere but the Trick ending.

I believe that's exactly what a "witch of truth" is. One cannot be called a "witch" if she doesn't perform some kind of "magic" and Erika is no exception.
Despite the fact she claims to despise lies and fantasy in the end she lies as much as Beatrice does.

So what Erika really hates is the uncertainty, any solution to a mystery is good with her as long as it can't be denied, even if that solution is entirely made up.

If there is a catbox she'll declare that the cat is dead even if there is no actual proof to conclude it is. In the end as long as the catbox remains closed no one can prove her wrong.

Ange took this path when she decided that Eva was the culprit and she persevered on that path when she decided that Amakusa wanted to kill her and that Kawabata betrayed her.

That however has absolutely nothing to do with the search for the truth.

Renall

2012-06-08, 11:43

Well, it's also a semi-interesting point about love as has been briefly discussed in the last page or so.

Some people just want to "be in love." Some people want to be loved. Some people want to love others.

If your sole goal is to have someone love you, any doubt or adversity is going to make you stumble. There's a reason loving someone else is called "unconditional." If you truly love them unconditionally and fully, even if you know they're doing things that are imperfect or wrong, you continue to love them.

Granted, loving unconditionally isn't the same thing as supporting unconditionally. But the point is, it doesn't appear that Erika ever really had any desire to love. If she ever did, she doesn't explain why or how.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-08, 11:56

Granted, loving unconditionally isn't the same thing as supporting unconditionally.

That's a very important concept, that unfortunately some people have a hard time to understand.

Anyway we don't know much about Erika's past and we don't know how much of that past we know is a total invention of Ikuko or something that the real Erika experienced. And we don't know if there's ever been a time when she believed in love, was capable of love and wanted to love.
All we know is that at the time of the story she is completely loveless.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-08, 15:29

In fairness to Erika, I'd like to point out that the man she loved did make her out to be a fool in public when she confronted him about it, then dumped her. She didn't seem to have QUITE pulled an "Ange's Truth Ending", here.

She's also like 14-16 or some shit, and this was probably her first boyfriend. People tend to cling to that regardless of how they'd normally act in a relationship, and it's implied by her disappearance off her cruiseboat that she may have attempted suicide because of it. She's acting all histrionic as overemotional teenagers do.

But, you know, Meta-World shenanigans force her to calcify into an exaggerated stereotype of herself, as if she were one of Yasu's or Tohya's characters...

haguruma

2012-06-10, 02:24

I believe that's exactly what a "witch of truth" is. One cannot be called a "witch" if she doesn't perform some kind of "magic" and Erika is no exception.
Despite the fact she claims to despise lies and fantasy in the end she lies as much as Beatrice does.
And isn't that exactly the fatal flaw of a "witch of truth" in opposition to a "detective" that is hinted at during Umineko?
The detective needs to find an already existing truth about a matter and put it into understandable perspective. The truth might be to his liking or his disliking. The witch of truth creates a truth from the elements that are at her disposal. It is not about actually reintegrating the events that happened into reality, but forming a new reality based on your own design. That is why I liked the last words that Battler and Erika exchanged, because they were suddenly on the same common ground again and accepted each other as equals, not trying to destroy each others reality through power and violence.
The truth a witch of truth creates is not necessarily true in terms of it's relation to reality, but rather in how believable it is. Just like Bern's miracles and Lambda's certainty are not necessarily miraculous or certain, they are just using elements at their disposal to make them appear as such.

And that is exactly what we learned about magic, isn't it? Magic is making people believe in what you show them, be it using evidence to create truth, making something improbable be called a miracle or using numbers to heighten the image of certainty. It all comes back down to belief and that is why Ryûkishi likens it to his view of love.

Just like Jan-Poo said, you can't be certain of anything in this world, which is why it is portrayed as necessary to at least belief in the existence of something for the world to have a meaning.
Like Renall said very accurately, if you simply seek to be loved, everything can make you doubt it. And I think what Aura Twilight said is pretty important too, because we have to think about the characters age.
Ryûkishi said this all boils down to the story of a girl in love. I think it's important to remember that Yasu is at heart a little girl who is demanding what Renall implied. She doesn't really care who it is, as is shown by her being torn apart about 3 people, she simply wants love as a proof of her own existence...any of those existences that she chose to engage herself in. If she isn't loved she practically doesn't exist, because she doesn't love herself.

Renall

2012-06-11, 08:58

What I always thought was interesting, and which I figured the games would touch on but they never really did, was the different forms of love the three cousins seemed to have for Yasu, at least as far as the game actually portrays: George wants to be loved; his devotion seems superficial but he demands a lot from Shannon and his vision for her is largely about how he wants to be treated. Ryukishi can swear up and down the love was mutual but I don't see him doing an awful lot of things that don't all come back to him.
Jessica wants to be in love; the whole Jessica/Kanon thing is cute, and a little sweet, but also very shallow and superficial too. Just in a different way from George. Jessica isn't really demanding anything of Kanon because she doesn't know what she wants from the relationship, just that she wants the relationship to exist.
Battler appears to be the closest to some form of unconditional or at least intellectual love. As far as we know from the backstory we're given in later episodes, Battler's relationship was founded on sharing, giving, and promising to do things with no expectation of getting anything back. Even if it wasn't a romantic love (perhaps Battler never saw it as such), it was mutual, meaningful, and unselfish. Knights on white horses don't tend to demand things of the fair maiden they rescue, or at least, not before they rescue them.AuraTwilight told me elsewhere that the four cousins (throwing Maria in there) could arguably be arranged to represent the four forms of classical Greek love, but I don't know enough about that to say.

Jan-Poo

2012-06-11, 10:24

I think George's case is more of a "possessive" kind of love. I don't think he actually craves for affection or at least that's not his main drive.

He wants Shannon to be his wife as part of a "great design" he has in mind. He constantly makes projects without actually asking Shannon's opinion, or without actually inquiring what are Shannon's dreams.

I might be biased but I think that "getting the girl" is all part of George's self realization projects. He wants to think of himself as a "winner", a popular guy an overachiever. And ironically it seems that in Rokkenjima prime he was actually seen as a good for nothing, a loser and a hikikomori.

Now don't misunderstand me, I think that George was pretty fond of Shannon, but on the same way a car freak would be fond of a supercar or a military otaku would be fond of his AK-47 high grade replica.

Renall

2012-06-11, 11:09

The main thing I really noticed is that Battler is the only person who gives to the relationship. Jessica's not really asking for much, but she's not giving either. George wants everything done according to his designs, and I can't once recall him questioning whether Shannon agreed with him or what she actually wanted. Even the "promise," which was Battler's "sin," is essentially regarded as a sin precisely because it was an act of apparent selflessness that was made insincerely (at least, that'd be the perspective of Culprit-Yasu apparently). But that he was willing to make such a promise at all is fairly unique among the relationships shown, as Battler is pretty much the only person who ever offered to do something he didn't have to do and which didn't really benefit him in any way. Many would consider an act of that nature to be one of pure love, which is part of the reason I kind of hope he actually did remember in Prime.

But again, this never really got adequately developed so I don't know if that was even a theme anyone was supposed to be going with.

Judoh

2012-06-11, 11:20

Drifloon

2012-06-11, 12:23

GoldenLand

2012-06-11, 12:34

I think George's love may have had elements of possessiveness and for craving attention, especially early on in the relationship. But I am inclined to think that his love was genuine. Wasn't there that interview with Ryukishi where he said that if Shannon had told George the truth, she might have got an unexpected answer? She had been sure that if George found out about her physical condition/that she couldn't have kids/(possibly that she's originally male), that would be the end of their relationship. But it looks as if George would still have loved her and would have accepted the situation despite his plans for their future kids.

On the other hand, just because his love wouldn't be shaken by Shannon's secret doesn't mean that his love can't be seen as possessive or self-centered. He did seem inclined to boss her around and make a lot of plans without asking her opinion. (...And his image song is seriously creepy.)

Judoh

2012-06-11, 13:24

Well, part of George's thing is that he wants to break away from his parents and become his own man. So becoming married to someone who his mother arranged for him to meet is the exact opposite of that.

You could even say George's engagement to Shannon is primarily an act of rebellion against Eva and her vision for him.

I know. That's partly what I meant.

I think that if he just wanted have woman as a status symbol like a car. Any woman would do, but his actions shows it's more complicated than that.

He refuses his arranged suitors in the marriage meetings because he wants to find his partner with his own ability. And also as sort of rebellion against his parents. I don't think having his affections returned is taking the back seat either. He says about one of his arranged suitors that there was nothing going on between them.
I think George thinks that it's normal for someone to have a partner at his age. Hence why he was jealous of Battler before. His pride made him think he deserved a partner at that time.
Of course he also thinks beautiful wife = status symbol, because that's part of the Ushiromiya upringing.

I'm just saying it's probably more complicated than just wanting Shannon because she's pretty. But it's there. :heh:

Jan-Poo

2012-06-11, 14:14

It could be also because he knew of the relationship between Shannon and Battler and envied them.

Well, I think he practically admitted that he envied Battler and that he tried to act like him. It wouldn't be strange if he tried to get the same girl. That doesn't mean it's just that, but it's probably what sparkled George's interest for Shannon and then year after year his feelings grew.

Renall

2012-06-11, 14:19

AuraTwilight

2012-06-11, 15:58

AuraTwilight told me elsewhere that the four cousins (throwing Maria in there) could arguably be arranged to represent the four forms of classical Greek love, but I don't know enough about that to say.

I'll clarify here.

Jessica is Philia, the Love of Friendship. Her relationship with Kanon is really cute, but she expresses her desire for a boyfriend as basically a "boy FRIEND" with super romantic benefits. She wants to play with him, hang out with him, and built a relationship on things they have in common, and ultimately have an easy, laid-back relationship.

George is Eros, the Love of Flesh. This is what most people think of when they think of love. He wants to get down with her and have a bunch of young'ns. Given his lack of regard for Shannon's true self, he seems to lack a lot of the components of the other four loves, making it basically a dolled up and prettified Lust.

Battler is Storge, the Love of Family. He comes to respect Beatrice intimately and intellectually, and takes the time to solve her mysteries and puzzles as a human being, and expects her to do the same. He ultimately 'marries' her and they come to consider each other parts of the same whole, like a family unit. Battler expects nothing of Beatrice except what he expects to give her back.

And Maria is Agape, the Unconditional Love. Called the Love of Martyrs, Agape is the Love Of No Expectations. The love that makes people throw themselves into fires to save a stranger. Socrates and Plato both called it the most beautiful of loves. Maria loves Rosa, and just about everyone else, unconditionally and expects nothing from them, and will excuse everything that happens at her expense.

Given that none of the four have a healthy relationship with the people they're paired with, Ryukishi seems to have made the unintentional point that focusing on only one of the Loves isn't healthy, or that it's crucial to identify what love you're actually feeling instead of just going "omg i wuv u's"

Drifloon

2012-06-12, 02:42

Wow, that's really interesting. I think those descriptions are really accurate actually.

Judoh

2012-06-13, 17:28

Very nice find!

GreyZone

2012-06-13, 17:50

[...]George is Eros, the Love of Flesh. This is what most people think of when they think of love. He wants to get down with her and have a bunch of young'ns. Given his lack of regard for Shannon's true self, he seems to lack a lot of the components of the other four loves, making it basically a dolled up and prettified Lust.[...]

Not wanting to be nitpicking, but are there 5 kinds of greek love, or was this just a typo?

AuraTwilight

2012-06-13, 21:38

Er, yea, that was a typo. Derp!

UsagiTenpura

2012-06-14, 15:41

I'll clarify here.

Jessica is Philia, the Love of Friendship. Her relationship with Kanon is really cute, but she expresses her desire for a boyfriend as basically a "boy FRIEND" with super romantic benefits. She wants to play with him, hang out with him, and built a relationship on things they have in common, and ultimately have an easy, laid-back relationship.

George is Eros, the Love of Flesh. This is what most people think of when they think of love. He wants to get down with her and have a bunch of young'ns. Given his lack of regard for Shannon's true self, he seems to lack a lot of the components of the other four loves, making it basically a dolled up and prettified Lust.

Battler is Storge, the Love of Family. He comes to respect Beatrice intimately and intellectually, and takes the time to solve her mysteries and puzzles as a human being, and expects her to do the same. He ultimately 'marries' her and they come to consider each other parts of the same whole, like a family unit. Battler expects nothing of Beatrice except what he expects to give her back.

And Maria is Agape, the Unconditional Love. Called the Love of Martyrs, Agape is the Love Of No Expectations. The love that makes people throw themselves into fires to save a stranger. Socrates and Plato both called it the most beautiful of loves. Maria loves Rosa, and just about everyone else, unconditionally and expects nothing from them, and will excuse everything that happens at her expense.

Given that none of the four have a healthy relationship with the people they're paired with, Ryukishi seems to have made the unintentional point that focusing on only one of the Loves isn't healthy, or that it's crucial to identify what love you're actually feeling instead of just going "omg i wuv u's"

I find this comparison very interesting, tho I have a few inputs about it.

- George feels more like Mania then Eros, overall, to me.
- Your description of Battler seems valid for the "outcome of Meta-Battler". Gameboard Battler is a "playful pervert" who showed to be mostly Philia like Jessica.
- Kinzo seems to have felt all five loves very strongly toward Beatrice 1. He also seems to have expected back all five loves and didn't get it.

AuraTwilight

2012-06-14, 16:00

- George feels more like Mania then Eros, overall, to me.

Mania isn't a Greek Love.

- Your description of Battler seems valid for the "outcome of Meta-Battler". Gameboard Battler is a "playful pervert" who showed to be mostly Philia like Jessica.

I'm basically judging the characters as a whole, incorporating all their Gameboard and Meta-perceptions.

Battler in both layers is effectively the same character, just with a different knowledgebase.

- Kinzo seems to have felt all five loves very strongly toward Beatrice 1. He also seems to have expected back all five loves and didn't get it.

Four loves, Usagi. Four.

And Kinzo effectively felt a mix of Storge and Eros. Philia is generally overridden by the other two, and Agape isn't something you feel towards 'one person', but 'to everyone'. Agape is specifically "Unconditional Love to All."

Depending on your interpretation of Kinzo, he either felt Eros, like George, or Storge, like Battler. It's yet another way Ryukishi seems to have made George and Battler into perfect foils of each other, albeit unintentionally.

Kealym

2012-06-14, 22:33

The question is, what does George like about Shannon? What is it about her that he loves? Or is he just in a relationship to have one and with a woman to have her? What does Shannon love about him? I honestly don't know. The relationship presented is at its climax with the proposal, and short of the trip at the start of ep2 (which is curiously non-revelatory), we never really see them do anything.

Well, maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I got the impression that George was attracted to her looks, her demure behavior, and penchant for domesticity. As for Shannon, she seemed impressed with his intelligence and generally gallant behavior towards her.

Keeping in mind that they're both very young, and this is, if both are to be believed, their FIRST romantic relationship ever, it isn't surprising that they're love, mostly uncontested, is pretty simple. Further, I'd say if you ask most people what they like about their partner, they'd have a few specific points, and quite a few very general things, like "He makes me laugh", or "She's always showing me new things"

I think it's pretty normal that you can attribute a relationship, sometimes, to circumstance, proximity, and availability. Shannon was a girl George had access to, their personalities gelled fairly well, and whatever she's using to pad out that bra is truly working miracles. Were the circumstances different, sure, they could end up with any other girl / guy. But the circumstances are ... as they are - Shannon got a sweet chubby Prince, and George got himself a meido waifu.