Quote:
Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura
I'm thinking there are two different approaches fundamentally to a given mystery. The most obvious example I can think of is the Virgilia vs Beatrice battle of arc 3. Battler at first is trying to explain how that scene can be possible. Later he learns to deny the existence of the entire scene.
It could be that all has to be answered and nothing be simply denied, but even should that be the truth I feel more content in not accepting what I find unacceptable.
|
The question that I contemplated again while translating Umineko related stuff was, was that approach actually the correct one? Sure, during EP3 it was Battler's way to win that argument, but Virgilia also implied that it was only the momentarily easiest way to understand what she was trying to tell him. She actually never did tell him that the fantasy appeared out of nothing, but that (as in case of rain rituals) it substituted for a rational explanation.
For that we have to look at what the scene actually shows us:
Kumasawa turns into Virgilia. Virgilia was at the beginning said to have taught magic to a young girl living in Kuwadorian. We learn that a Beatrice lived in Kuwadorian. Beatrice calls Virgilia her teacher. This sets the basic idea that whoever Beatrice is was taught about something, that is substituted with the term "magic", by Kumasawa.
Now Virgilia says that Beatrice understands magic the wrong way and has strayed from the path. She tries to bring Beatrice back to "what she was before" and tries to make her "remember the form she had" (Yasu). This is of course refuted by Beatrice who is intent on carrying out "the ritual" (which could be understood as a substitute for Yasu's attempt at trying to make Battler remember) which finally leads to Virgilia being killed.
Does that not seem as a pretty appropriate explanation to how Kumasawa could have been murdered in EP3?
And while we are at EP3, I'd like to propose something about Eva-Beato, which I think hasn't been brought up in recent discussions, but which I think could benefit an explanation. Who created Eva-Beato?
Was it actually Eva in the moment she found the gold? Was there actually an illusionary child-self that aided her in finding it? I think not. I think it is much more appropriate when we see her as a construct from the position of 1998.
By whom? Basically by three people. Eva never told about what happened which gave Ange the opportunity to doubt her. At the same time Tôya created Banquet of the Golden Witch, which is possibly either his own confusion about the case or a clever way to hide the actual culprit, which was again read by Ange. To top that Ange knew of Maria's way of portraying people turning evil, it was not actually them but an evil double that existed parallel to them and took over their body.
Thus Eva-Beato is the black witch (the horrible potential in people) given a shape by the thoughts of the future (Ange's wish for Eva to be the culprit).
So any act that Eva-Beato commits could be seen as Ange's wish for that murder to have been carried out by Eva, despite actual evidence.
I have to run now, but I think I'd like to propose a complete solution to EP3 later on.