AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-06-07, 07:11   Link #29061
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Code:
Beatrice is         Telling the Truth         Lying
You believe         You can understand        You cannot understand
You disbelieve      You cannot understand     You cannot understand
This implies that you cannot understand the truth by disbelieving someone who's lying. It's quite a simplistic view.
If you can understand the reason someone is lying and when he's lying you can also understand the truth.

And Pascal was a philosopher that completely disregarded the Socratic tenant that one who knows he doesn't know knows more than one who believes to know even if he doesn't.

There is a value in knowing you don't know that this model completely overlooks.

And frankly Umineko to me always seemed the kind of story where you can't really carelessly believe in everything.


Code:
Beatrice is                    Sane                  Delusional!
You decide she's Sane          You can understand    You cannot understand
You decide she's Delusional    No understanding      No understanding
You are killing psychology with this

You could be right only in the case where delusions and lies are completely random. But delusions and lies are almost never random, and I believe they definitely aren't in Umineko.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 08:44   Link #29062
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
The fictional Ange in EP4, of course, was portrayed by Tooya as rather... delusional. I've wondered at what kind of a person Tooya would be to do this; even though he may not have an emotional connection to Ange... you're still, playing with the characters of real people. Maybe Tooya's characterization isn't as tight as Ryukishi wanted, or should have made him...
I think this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the narrative structure of EP4.

Krauss gets into a fistfight with a goat demon in EP4, but we don't label him as delusional. We understand that because there was no external observer to that scene, it was painted over with a parallel fantasy narrative by the Reader. So, understanding that EP4 Ange is fictional, why do you conclude that she's delusional when the parts of her narrative without external observers are also painted over with fantasy?
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 10:30   Link #29063
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
This implies that you cannot understand the truth by disbelieving someone who's lying. It's quite a simplistic view.
If you can understand the reason someone is lying and when he's lying you can also understand the truth.
What I said about Beatrice simply telling the truth or a lie is a simplification of her actions. Maybe I should have labelled it more as: "Beatrice has something to tell us even through lies" vs. "Beatrice is 100% hiding everything and wasting our time."

I guess I'm trying to get at more the philosophy of your own decision or reaction to other people. What I mean is that if you 'disbelieve,' you are choosing to refuse to understand to begin with. Because you believe that there is no truth to be found to begin with. So if you're trying to understand why someone is lying already, you are believing that some kind of truth is available to be understood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
You are killing psychology with this

You could be right only in the case where delusions and lies are completely random. But delusions and lies are almost never random, and I believe they definitely aren't in Umineko.
I got the feeling that Pascal also kinda killed philosophy with his simplistic model about believing in God too...

So what I mean is that when we decide that it's totally useless, we kill that ability for any truth to reach us. We kill it inside ourselves simply with a decision. Since you believe you can still mine out the truth, you're on the other side already, on the believing side.

Oh also, just in case.... this model is relevant when there is uncertainty of the other side's actions. The more certain you are of the other person's actions, the more certain you are of which decision you should make.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
I think this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the narrative structure of EP4.

Krauss gets into a fistfight with a goat demon in EP4, but we don't label him as delusional. We understand that because there was no external observer to that scene, it was painted over with a parallel fantasy narrative by the Reader. So, understanding that EP4 Ange is fictional, why do you conclude that she's delusional when the parts of her narrative without external observers are also painted over with fantasy?
Maybe delusional is too harsh a word for EP4's Ange. But she was definitely escaping her harsh life with her imagination, and then starting to rely on that imagination to even 'attack' her classmates.

Of course, this is the fictional Ange in EP4, and it's not guaranteed that the real Ange-Prime would have done this. I'd think that EP4 was an exaggeration of reality in order for Tooya to make a point, of course.

When you say that the the fantasy was painted over the truth, that Krauss becomes a super boxer that can defeat magic goatmen, I'm just doing something like pointing out that Krauss ended up being portrayed as a super boxer in the fantasy. In the same way, I'm just saying Ange ended up being portrayed as ... delusional -> escapist? in her fictional representation too.

Although, you know, maybe it was unfair for Tooya to have done so, that part really was just halfway through Ange's character arc. In the end her hallucinations fail her and she comes to an better understanding of magic...
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 10:42   Link #29064
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Pascal's Wager is only valid in the situation actually proposed by Pascal: Determining whether one should believe on faith in the existence of a God who cannot be apprehended or accessed through reason. While the example matrix could be reapplied, it can only be reapplied in circumstances where faith alone can inform probability.

In other words, if the means exists to determine the truth of Beatrice's statements as well as her nature as an individual and the scenario which presents evidence for or against her existence in the first place, Pascal's Wager is inapplicable because external information which can be accessed and processed by reason informs our possible decisions.

Additionally, a presupposition of Pascal's "proof" is that God either exists or does not exist. This is overly simplistic even for Pascal's purposes, but it can at least be boiled down to "either there is some transcendent force or there is not, and this force is more inclined to benevolence toward those who acknowledge it." Which is, I should note, itself a presupposition; Pascal could be flat wrong and God exists but does not care whether or not you believe or is not capable of granting you any benefit or penalty for believing/disbelieving, in which case the matrix is pointless because all outcomes are zero.

In the case of Beatrice, however, we have a non-binary continuum of outcomes we can believe she is being truthful or untruthful about. For example, we can doubt her claim of being a witch outright, but we can also choose to partially doubt and partially believe by choosing to believe that she speaks metaphorically about her status as a witch, and assume from there that what she is conveying to us has a meaning in the context of that half-truth which we need to understand is a half-truth to apprehend the truth she's communicating.

Basically, if you alter the premises or available information, Pascal's Wager explodes. It's a childishly oversimplified example to begin with, because truth is independent of calculations in uncontrolled situations. You might still learn the truth even if you don't believe anything, simply by accidentally finding a videotape of the entire crime or being told the truth out of the blue by somebody credible who discovered it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Krauss gets into a fistfight with a goat demon in EP4, but we don't label him as delusional. We understand that because there was no external observer to that scene, it was painted over with a parallel fantasy narrative by the Reader. So, understanding that EP4 Ange is fictional, why do you conclude that she's delusional when the parts of her narrative without external observers are also painted over with fantasy?
The scene with Ange talking to the Stakes in the classroom did have external observers. Even if we conclude the matter is a fantasy, it suggests something about the Ange shown to us: That she would prefer to retreat mentally into herself (if not to "delusions," then to a more comforting imagination state) rather than confront or even acknowledge the reality of her situation as presented to us.

When Krauss is punching the goat, we don't get the sense that Krauss is believing the goat exists and struggling with it as an internal mental process. Ange's interactions with her magical characters do exactly that, in stark contrast to magic scenes involving any other characters... except Maria, Natsuhi, and Yasu. You can quibble over whether any of those characters are in fact delusional in a psychological sense, but there's clearly something about them which makes you suspect that each, in the words of famed child psychologist Hank Hill, ain't right. But nothing ever suggests that Krauss is having a similar mental development.

Ange's fragile psychology is central to her character. Whether it's actually true is another matter, and "Yukari" or Ange-Prime may indeed not be as fragile as, perhaps, the individual who imagined ANGE thinks she is. But it's very clear that he thinks she is, because he treats her like she is.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 11:08   Link #29065
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
You might still learn the truth even if you don't believe anything, simply by accidentally finding a videotape of the entire crime or being told the truth out of the blue by somebody credible who discovered it.
If you can learn the truth after finding evidence, then you are in a mental state that I wasn't describing. I'm not talking about not believing in anything, I'm talking about forcibly believing in the negative without sufficient evidence.

I'm talking about the mental state where even contrary evidence is discarded or reinterpreted to fit your own world view, because you came to a decision before even any evidence came to light.

This is illustrated in Umineko by the people going, "I'll never believe in anything but the red text!" Amongst, other ways of totally denying that there was any meaning to be had. Of course, I'm not talking about anyone here doing that, but the mere concept of that action itself. And I'm not sure that in reality anyone saying that would be 100% serious... I hope.


And let me just cut off any strawman counter-arguments here. I was not talking about EP4 fictional Ange before, I was talking about Yukari (i.e. 'the real Ange') and the idea that simply having hope in something totally improbable (Battler surviving despite everyone believing him dead) should not be construed as delusional.

You do know you are arguing against the metaphor? A metaphor is merely a tool people use to illustrate an idea or concept. And Pascal's wager is merely the tool I used to illustrate the kind of dead end thinking we can find ourselves getting into. In of itself it is not a proof of any kind. (Despite what Pascal may have thought.) Pascal's Wager itself is not relevant to Umineko; whether God exists or not is not the decision matrix that Umineko needs.

Did you have any comments about The Believing Game vs. The Doubting Game? Do you have any comments about stuff like dead-end thinking?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
In the case of Beatrice, however, we have a non-binary continuum of outcomes we can believe she is being truthful or untruthful about. For example, we can doubt her claim of being a witch outright, but we can also choose to partially doubt and partially believe by choosing to believe that she speaks metaphorically about her status as a witch, and assume from there that what she is conveying to us has a meaning in the context of that half-truth which we need to understand is a half-truth to apprehend the truth she's communicating.
Yes, that's great. But this is not what I was talking about. I was talking about people deciding from early on that there is no truth to be communicated at all; or that all is useless. And I was talking about how certain labels, like 'delusional' or 'liar' or etc, encourage us into that kind of thinking. If you say that we can choose to partially doubt and partially believe her, you're already talking about a state of mind that's different than what I was trying to say.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 11:33   Link #29066
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
The problem is, we can potentially be meant to doubt something in order to reach a truth; it's possible to "tell the truth by lying." So if you say you approach Umineko by not believing anything Beatrice says, you might be able to reach the truth if Ryukishi was banking on the truth being reachable by doubting her.

Most of what you're proposing is a meaningless exercise because there's insufficient information to know with certainty the author's purpose with respect to conveyance of the truth and whether it could be attained through different forms of reasoning. It's possible both can lead to an appropriate conclusion.

It's also possible to rationally weigh the evidence and author's statements which have been presented and determine that it is more likely than not that, say, the truth does not exist. It's not because a person is doubting as an immediate response, but because attempts not to doubt have been fruitless and evidence suggests there may not have been any purpose to attempting to find anything.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 11:35   Link #29067
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
Maybe delusional is too harsh a word for EP4's Ange. But she was definitely escaping her harsh life with her imagination, and then starting to rely on that imagination to even 'attack' her classmates.

Of course, this is the fictional Ange in EP4, and it's not guaranteed that the real Ange-Prime would have done this. I'd think that EP4 was an exaggeration of reality in order for Tooya to make a point, of course.

When you say that the the fantasy was painted over the truth, that Krauss becomes a super boxer that can defeat magic goatmen, I'm just doing something like pointing out that Krauss ended up being portrayed as a super boxer in the fantasy. In the same way, I'm just saying Ange ended up being portrayed as ... delusional -> escapist? in her fictional representation too.

Although, you know, maybe it was unfair for Tooya to have done so, that part really was just halfway through Ange's character arc. In the end her hallucinations fail her and she comes to an better understanding of magic...
When we talk about super-boxer Krauss, there are two interpretations:

1) Kyrie claims Krauss had a magic fight with a goat demon
2) Krauss actually had a magic fight with a goat demon

There is no credible third interpretation that "Krauss is hallucinated having a magic fight with a goatman." Similarly, with Ange we have:

1) Ange is simply being bullied and feels helpless to do anything about it, so she rejects Maria's philosophy of a positive outlook
2) Ange is being bullied and her demon friends can't help her because there's too much anti-magic toxin, so she rejects them

We can argue about whether #3, "Ange is being bullied and her hallucinated imaginary friends can't help her because they don't exist" is a credible interpretation, but aren't you ignoring #1 and #2? There's no need to forcibly mash all the fantasy elements into the real world. If you try, you start needing to claim things like "Ange just happened to hallucinate the stakes attacking Kyrie's men at the exact instant that they were shot, even though she had no idea Amakusa had a sniper rifle or when he would fire."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
The scene with Ange talking to the Stakes in the classroom did have external observers. Even if we conclude the matter is a fantasy, it suggests something about the Ange shown to us: That she would prefer to retreat mentally into herself (if not to "delusions," then to a more comforting imagination state) rather than confront or even acknowledge the reality of her situation as presented to us.
Ange's thought processes and things only she can see are not knowable by outside observers. Hallucination and mental imbalance only comes into it if you decide, for some reason, that you have to accept that she's seeing demons while also simultaneously rejecting all of the other details of the fantasy layer, like the anti-magic toxin rules.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 11:44   Link #29068
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Basically, if you alter the premises or available information, Pascal's Wager explodes. It's a childishly oversimplified example to begin with, because truth is independent of calculations in uncontrolled situations.
One more thing. This is not Pascal's Wager we're talking about here, we're talking about Decision Theory. Of which Pascal's Wager is only a specific and, yes, very simplified example.

Decision Theory cannot, 'explode' as you say.

As the number of scenarios increase, the matrix increases in size; it's not limited to binary decisions. Don't take the one example with Pascal's Wager to be the entirety of the mathematical theory itself.

For example, as you say that Beatrice's actions are not binary, we can have a 3x3 matrix. (Or more, you can build up the chart yourself.)

Code:
Beatrice says she is a witch.  But in reality:

Beatrice                    is a witch                  lying for a good reason                lying for no good reason (nonsensical)

You believe:
She is a witch              Beatrice can do magic         You've been deceived                    You've been deceived
Lying for a good reason     You've underestimated her     You can try to find her reasons          You've been deceived
Lying for no good reason    You've underestimated her     You refuse to believe her reasons     You refuse to believe anything she says
I can't seem to format that table properly without it going off the edge, but I think you can see from it that there is no winning scenario at the bottom. Which is really my only point.

Of course, I'm not talking about using it to apply to things that have a thousand different scenarios. I'm not really talking about using it in your life, in fact. What I am saying applies to Umineko, or our lives and attitudes, is that the bottom row presents you with a total losing scenario based on your on refusal of belief, regardless of the other entity in the columns.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
The problem is, we can potentially be meant to doubt something in order to reach a truth; it's possible to "tell the truth by lying." So if you say you approach Umineko by not believing anything Beatrice says, you might be able to reach the truth if Ryukishi was banking on the truth being reachable by doubting her.

Most of what you're proposing is a meaningless exercise because there's insufficient information to know with certainty the author's purpose with respect to conveyance of the truth and whether it could be attained through different forms of reasoning. It's possible both can lead to an appropriate conclusion.

It's also possible to rationally weigh the evidence and author's statements which have been presented and determine that it is more likely than not that, say, the truth does not exist. It's not because a person is doubting as an immediate response, but because attempts not to doubt have been fruitless and evidence suggests there may not have been any purpose to attempting to find anything.
Again, I am not talking about what Ryukishi or Beatrice is doing. I am talking about our own premature conclusions.

What I mean is that why I used the title, "Losing at Umineko." I was being cheeky of course, but I'm trying to say that it is our own disbelief that anything is possible (or that we can find the truth) that defeats ourself. We defeat ourselves in Umineko. 8)
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 12:19   Link #29069
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
As the number of scenarios increase, the matrix increases in size; it's not limited to binary decisions. Don't take the one example with Pascal's Wager to be the entirety of the mathematical theory itself.

For example, as you say that Beatrice's actions are not binary, we can have a 3x3 matrix. (Or more, you can build up the chart yourself.)

I can't seem to format that table properly without it going off the edge, but I think you can see from it that there is no winning scenario at the bottom. Which is really my only point.
But only because you constructed it that way. The continuum of possibilities makes it improbable to believe that the entirety of the possible truth can be represented by a mathematical matrix, because we don't actually know what our full range of options are.
Quote:
Of course, I'm not talking about using it to apply to things that have a thousand different scenarios. I'm not really talking about using it in your life, in fact. What I am saying applies to Umineko, or our lives and attitudes, is that the bottom row presents you with a total losing scenario based on your on refusal of belief, regardless of the other entity in the columns.

Again, I am not talking about what Ryukishi or Beatrice is doing. I am talking about our own premature conclusions.

What I mean is that why I used the title, "Losing at Umineko." I was being cheeky of course, but I'm trying to say that it is our own disbelief that anything is possible (or that we can find the truth) that defeats ourself. We defeat ourselves in Umineko. 8)
Unless it turns out the author intended us to do what you call the "losing" line, and we have no way of knowing that he did or didn't at this time. You're considering that we either know or don't know based on whether we choose to do one thing, another thing, or yet another thing; in truth, we cannot know what any of the outcomes actually are because we do not know what the premises or outcomes are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Ange's thought processes and things only she can see are not knowable by outside observers. Hallucination and mental imbalance only comes into it if you decide, for some reason, that you have to accept that she's seeing demons while also simultaneously rejecting all of the other details of the fantasy layer, like the anti-magic toxin rules.
We have no evidence that those rules actually exist though, or if they're just convenient excuses fantasy characters (or believers) trot out to explain why those who disbelieve never happen to notice anything. The anti-magic toxin apparently didn't prevent the Stakes from manifesting or talking to Ange in that scene, for example, which seems to put to lie the very idea that such a thing even exists at all. Yes, this means that fantasy is sometimes inconsistent in its application, from the look of things. But I think Ryukishi just wrote inconsistently with respect to the fantasy layer. Do not ascribe to a grand design what could be explained by not giving a damn; or perhaps more gently, the fantasy rules are meant to be flexible to cover everything from telling stories to outright mental problems.

Additionally, we cannot know that Ange is not delusional, by your own claim. However, the evidence we are shown of her apparent mental state does not necessarily refute that possibility.

The issue is whether Ange's mental state appears to be affected by what she has seen, and what this might indicate. To use a better example, Natsuhi either did or didn't think she spoke to Kinzo in his study in ep1, but regardless of whether she did or not it had some effect on her mental state. Was she delusional, or was she just giving herself a pep talk? It's true that there is a significant difference, which is why it's necessary to look at a pattern of behavior. The characters who seem to have the loosest grip on their mental states, Rosa aside, are the ones most immediately inclined to "seeing" fantasy characters and interacting with them while in places where outside observers exist.

Granted, again, it could be a metaphor instead. But whether fantasy is harmful doesn't depend on whether the delusions are actualized or simply metaphorical for an unhealthy imaginative process.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 12:28   Link #29070
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
The problem is that in this kind of game you can't win simply convincing yourself that you found the truth. Or at least I don't recognize that as a victory at all.

In Umineko you simply cannot win, it's like playing battleship with someone that after a certain point refuses to tell you if you hit his ships.

It really doesn't matter what kind of logic or approach you use to guess where those ships are. Whether you disbelief the few feedback that he gave you, or you believe them, you still can't be sure you'll hit the right ships.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 21:05   Link #29071
JakeK08
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
The problem is that in this kind of game you can't win simply convincing yourself that you found the truth. Or at least I don't recognize that as a victory at all.

In Umineko you simply cannot win, it's like playing battleship with someone that after a certain point refuses to tell you if you hit his ships.

It really doesn't matter what kind of logic or approach you use to guess where those ships are. Whether you disbelief the few feedback that he gave you, or you believe them, you still can't be sure you'll hit the right ships.
Well as said by Ryukishi in Higurashi, victory is achieved once you create your own theory after completing the game.

Speaking of theories, I came up with one of my own on Umineko, seeing as I'm not too fond of the 'everyone's playing a game/pretending to be dead' one.

Spoiler for My Theory:



Spoiler for Far-fetched/Incomplete Theory:
JakeK08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-07, 22:43   Link #29072
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
The family engages in several activities that leads them to be in danger of being killed or captured; Kinzo is protecting the family. Once he dies he can no longer protect them and so the whole family is to be killed off. The only way for someone to survive is to become the head through solving the epitaph as then they will be protected and transport will be given to them to escape from the island.

Yasu solves the epitaph before the murders happen. In the secret room she is informed that when Kinzo dies everyone on the island will die during the annual conference, but as she has solved the epitaph she has a chance of survival. Kinzo did want someone to become his successor but he also wanted to kill of everyone else. If she commits the murders she can escape from the island. She is given the name “Endless” and starts planning the murders.

Somewhere just before the process begins Yasu no longer wishes to live, so during the conference in which she will kill everyone she gives them the chance to survive instead of her. She gives Maria the letter which states that if someone solves the epitaph they can inherit the gold, but doesn’t inform them that they will also survive the murders.

In one episode (Banquet) Eva solves the epitaph. Yasu relinquishes her role as “Endless” and gives it to her. Yasu’s only wish is that Eva murders everyone in order of the epitaph. Eva then proceeds to carry out all the murders and survives. Eva never reveals the truth as she also committed murder. In another episode (End) Battler solves the epitaph and so gains the title “Endless” and also survives.

Endless = They have survived and therefore live on in that ‘gameboard’. The person with the name endless is also given the task of killing the rest of the characters.
Do you have any evidence for this? What is it based on?

Quote:
The brothers and sisters aren’t really blood-related to Kinzo.
Battler is Kinzo's grandson through Rudolf, by blood.

Quote:
Maria thinks they are in no real danger as Yasu lies and says he/she is doing something to save everyone, and informs her of this (probably something along the lines of: the person with the title endless can magically save everyone by killing them in order of the epitaph). When everyone is revived they start back at the airport and only people on the island are affected, they also forget all about the previous gameboards (this doesn’t apply to anyone in the Meta world). However, Yasu always tells Maria as she is the only one who can communicate with Ange, apart from the survivors (who don’t want to tell her they’ve murdered), and she sends out message bottles every time they are revived, but only two reach Japan.
...Do you...

You seem to think that the fantasy segments are real? What? Maria can't communicate with Ange.

Quote:
When Ange finds out the truth she stops the cycle from happening, and no new gameboards are created. By finding out the truth Ange has unknowingly stopped everyone from being revived ever again, therefore she has ‘killed’ her family and stopped any chance of seeing them again (apart from the survivors). This is why Battler and Yasu are so hesitant on Ange finding out the truth (this is where the theme of ‘Truth or peace?’ comes to mind). Following this theory you could say Ange is actually the main character of Umineko, and not Battler.
Except the ending has Ange keeping everyone alive through her memory in some Golden Land, and on top of that, it's the speculations of the Witch Hunters that keep things going, if anything. Ange never goes public with the truth, afterall.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 00:16   Link #29073
GoldenLand
Eaten by goats
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeK08 View Post
The family engages in several activities that leads them to be in danger of being killed or captured; Kinzo is protecting the family. Once he dies he can no longer protect them and so the whole family is to be killed off. The only way for someone to survive is to become the head through solving the epitaph as then they will be protected and transport will be given to them to escape from the island.

Yasu solves the epitaph before the murders happen. In the secret room she is informed that when Kinzo dies everyone on the island will die during the annual conference, but as she has solved the epitaph she has a chance of survival. Kinzo did want someone to become his successor but he also wanted to kill of everyone else. If she commits the murders she can escape from the island. She is given the name “Endless” and starts planning the murders.

Somewhere just before the process begins Yasu no longer wishes to live, so during the conference in which she will kill everyone she gives them the chance to survive instead of her. She gives Maria the letter which states that if someone solves the epitaph they can inherit the gold, but doesn’t inform them that they will also survive the murders.

In one episode (Banquet) Eva solves the epitaph. Yasu relinquishes her role as “Endless” and gives it to her. Yasu’s only wish is that Eva murders everyone in order of the epitaph. Eva then proceeds to carry out all the murders and survives. Eva never reveals the truth as she also committed murder. In another episode (End) Battler solves the epitaph and so gains the title “Endless” and also survives.

Endless = They have survived and therefore live on in that ‘gameboard’. The person with the name endless is also given the task of killing the rest of the characters.
I have a few questions about this theory.

- If a person can only survive the murders and leave the island through solving the epitaph, but they are also the person who must plan and commit the murders, what on Earth is making them go through with it?

- Why can't they leave the island through the usual means? The Ushiromiyas have transport to and from the island. People and supplies are transported back and forth.

- If everyone will die during the family conference even if Yasu doesn't do it or appoint anyone else to do it, why doesn't Yasu warn people not to go to the conference?

- If appointed the successor, why would Eva go through with it, especially with the murders of her son and her husband? And assuming she could somehow be forced into it, why wouldn't she transfer the successorship to her son in order to protect him?

- Why did it take so long for the family to be killed off after Kinzo's death, if he was protecting them?
GoldenLand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 07:21   Link #29074
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
But both Eva AND Battler survived in prime (and depending on your stance, Yasu also). So it can't be that only 1 person survives for sure.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 07:57   Link #29075
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeK08 View Post
Well as said by Ryukishi in Higurashi, victory is achieved once you create your own theory after completing the game.
Any kind of theory?
Super easy mode.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 08:09   Link #29076
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
In a sense, KnownNoMore is a victor because he's absolutely convinced he found the answer that he can make a very detailed video (nine hours) explaining it. If you believe you have the answer, you don't let anyone take it away from you, and you weave it in the golden truth, not red or blue.
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 08:30   Link #29077
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Any kind of theory?
Super easy mode.
Gohda left the stove on. Done and dusted! When's the next When They Cry?
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 08:56   Link #29078
GoldenLand
Eaten by goats
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Any kind of theory?
Super easy mode.
Eva hiked to Kuwadorian as part of a fitness regime. Battler took a small rowing boat out because of a dare. In the meantime, the bomb malfunctioned and killed everyone else. Any inconsistencies with Battler's memories of the incident were caused by his head injury. Yasu wrote the message bottles for the lulz, and sent them out before the accident. Eva kept the "truth" secret because she mistakenly believed George was the culprit.

...No, that's not super easy enough.

The bomb malfunctioned.

Or there's always the classic A volcano erupted.
GoldenLand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 09:27   Link #29079
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
What about the obvious? A witch did it.

There we go. Oh wait... if you say that, then you lose...
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-08, 09:28   Link #29080
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Think there seems to be something forgotten...

In that anti-mystery vs anti-fantasy TIPS, ryuukishi used the example of Maekashi and said basically "what if I had released a new arc later that basically told you what you thought was the truth with Maekashi alone ended up being wrong".

I think if you properly understand the implications of that, you can understand why Umineko doesn't have a clear answer. Why you have to come up with your own answer that satisfies yourself.


I'll give an Higurashi example of such a thing.
Spoiler for Higurashi:


So just saying this as an example that basically we always make our own answers, even when the author mostly gave them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
But both Eva AND Battler survived in prime (and depending on your stance, Yasu also). So it can't be that only 1 person survives for sure.
Im thinking lately more and more that Eva and Battler's survival from Rokkenjima is sorta like them becoming "voyagers" and traveling to a new "kakera". Well I'm not entirely certain about Eva, but Battler seems to fit very much so. As Rika became Bernkastel, Battler became Tohya, is what it really feels like to me. Remember what they say about voyager witches and crossing the sea (and the dangers of forgetting yourself on the way... just like Battler). I think arc 8's ending is a litteral description of that, rather then an actual fact about Battler's escape.

Last edited by UsagiTenpura; 2012-06-08 at 09:50.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.