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 2012-08-15, 13:49   Link #30021
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Except treating it that way is exactly the opposite of what we were told to do in Episode 7. How are we supposed to either take the work seriously as a character drama or approach it as an intellectual puzzler when the author himself is not consistent in his message as to how we ought to enjoy his work? He brings all this criticism on himself by being inconsistent. As Kealym said, he does stuff that exists solely to be a puzzle or plot twist and which has no discernible motive (or at least, we've never discerned one that makes it immediately necessary to take the action as opposed to "I have a lingering resentment," which contradicts the ep5 red about Beatrice's motives). Then he turns around and tells us that motive is the most important part.
But I actually think it's more the writer's "motive" being discussed in EP7 than the motive of the culprit of the games. Like how in Our Confessions Beatrice doesn't "confess" how she murders everyone so much as she "confesses" how she arranges the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Okay, so why is Beatrice so goddamn gung-ho about killing poor Gohda? Because he's a little bit arrogant and not always nice to other servants? Is that what we're supposed to take away from this? Or worse, if she has nothing against Gohda at all, she's totally okay with murdering him just to construct a puzzle? How can we treat her as a sympathetic figure when she has the motives of a complete sociopath? And if we're only supposed to ask how something was possible, why is it important that we finger a specific culprit or even a single culprit for every event?
I think these are legitimate questions, but I also think RK07 raised them intentionally. Again I would like to refer to Bern's game in EP8, and its juxtaposition with Ange's experiences on the same game's gameboard.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 14:28   Link #30022
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Okay, so why is Beatrice so goddamn gung-ho about killing poor Gohda? Because he's a little bit arrogant and not always nice to other servants? Is that what we're supposed to take away from this? Or worse, if she has nothing against Gohda at all, she's totally okay with murdering him just to construct a puzzle? How can we treat her as a sympathetic figure when she has the motives of a complete sociopath?
Don't you get it? She had to kill people in order to communicate her love to Battler, it's all because of love! You see, she had to do it, a witch told her.

In the end "umineko is the story of a single girl who arrived at that point because of the love and madness in herself".
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 15:21   Link #30023
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
But I actually think it's more the writer's "motive" being discussed in EP7 than the motive of the culprit of the games. Like how in Our Confessions Beatrice doesn't "confess" how she murders everyone so much as she "confesses" how she arranges the story.
That's fine and all, but for the theme to actually work it has to mirror the notion of a culprit in a mystery story having a good motive with the author of a mystery story having a good motive, and if only the latter actually applies then the whole comparison falls flat. Just because her mystery is crap doesn't mean we should discount what she has to say... but all the same, having something to say doesn't excuse being crap.
__________________
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 2012-08-15, 17:02   Link #30024
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drifloon View Post
Beatrice presumably told her about her plan after she solved the epitaph, like in the EP7 tea party. So when she suddenly had three deaths on her hands, she decided to follow that plan herself to maintain the Illusion of the Witch.
While it's possible, well, not even in Ep 7 she went on in details about how she wanted to murder them and I'm not sure Eva would hear it out... unless she's planning right from beginning to murder everyone and wanted to recycle Yasu's plan.

... and call me biased but I've hard time thinking Eva really wanted to murder everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drifloon View Post
Alternatively, Beatrice staked them herself to maintain that illusion, if you like.
Well, my theory was that Yasu staked them. If with Yasu you mean Beatrice then we're agreeing on this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drifloon View Post
One word: Beatrice.
*nods* Yes, that's my theory as well but the point in discussion was if someone else could have done it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drifloon View Post
Beatrice never murdered for revenge. I think it's more likely that she believed that everyone really would be united in the Golden Land if they believed. It's pretty obvious that the ceremony is more important than the actual murders, though I admit Nanjo's murder is pretty weird in that respect. The post-8th twilight murders always bug me.
Two problems:
- When Virginia said so was she talking of PieceBeato or MetaBeato? Because MetaBeato was likely merely writing a story about a murder hoping Battler would enjoy it so yes 'she didn't kill the pieces for revenge'. PieceBeato, or better PieceYasu howeverisn't writing a story. To her the murders are real. Are we sure the red referred to her as well?

-I still have the same problem if she's killing people to send them to the golden land. She's killing because she's insane or retarded. In short the motive is nothing a normal person would share.

Basically, after ranting so much about the motive, the motive Battler was supposed to guess wasn't the one of the 'culprit' but the one of the 'writer'.

It becomes a terribly contorted thing, a riddle in a riddle. it might have her reason to be, as it becomes clear that MetaBeato cares little for the Pieces and would probably want Battler to focus on her, but since Battler for quite a while can't differentiate between himself and his Piece form, nor between Beato and her Piece form and readers were more into the PieceMystery and into the Prime Mystery than in the psychological motivation that pushed a metaBeato who might exist only in Battler's fantasy to ask him to solve some mysteries, it becomes a riddle that we weren't really trying to solve.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 17:19   Link #30025
Klarth
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Just a random post, wondering how most people think of Yasu.
I'm sure there are more way people represent it... but I've seen it in all different ways.

Spoiler for Image:


I like the second one the most, I feel it fits best with the love duel. The third and fourth makes some reds hard (but if they're lies anyway...), but the third one makes the "one personality for every cousin" more eloquent.
I'd say most people would go for the first or second one, but the first one makes me feel like it doesn't make sense for Shannon to win the love duel. Then again, Beatrice lost because of Battler's leaving, not her own lack of resolve.

What are your opinions? What would you say the general consensus is?
Klarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 17:51   Link #30026
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
That's fine and all, but for the theme to actually work it has to mirror the notion of a culprit in a mystery story having a good motive with the author of a mystery story having a good motive, and if only the latter actually applies then the whole comparison falls flat. Just because her mystery is crap doesn't mean we should discount what she has to say... but all the same, having something to say doesn't excuse being crap.
I don't know about if a "proper" parallel needs to be drawn for the comparison to work, but I certainly do agree that Beatrice's stories are not at all sophisticated stories once you understand them. I wouldn't call them crap per se, just extremely childish. Just semantics, I know; I guess I don't see a reason to hold Beatrice to standards of good writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klarth View Post
Just a random post, wondering how most people think of Yasu.
I'm sure there are more way people represent it... but I've seen it in all different ways.

Spoiler for Image:


I like the second one the most, I feel it fits best with the love duel. The third and fourth makes some reds hard (but if they're lies anyway...), but the third one makes the "one personality for every cousin" more eloquent.
I'd say most people would go for the first or second one, but the first one makes me feel like it doesn't make sense for Shannon to win the love duel. Then again, Beatrice lost because of Battler's leaving, not her own lack of resolve.

What are your opinions? What would you say the general consensus is?
1 or 2. During Shannon's BSOD in EP7 she referred to a "one who orders us". I'm much inclined to pick #2, but I can also imagine it being a fluid thing between 1 & 2.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 18:00   Link #30027
Asuka0NK
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Based on the fact that Yasu "became" Beatrice in EP 7 I'm gonna have to go with the first graph of Beatrice being the real Yasu who hid behind the appearance of the witch so that she could be noticed by Battler.
__________________
Asuka0NK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 18:19   Link #30028
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
And as we see clearly in ep4, Eva and EVA-Beatrice are different beings, at least morally
Ah yes, but as I said I'm not sure she (who is the most developed of the non-Yasu personalities) can count at all, as who met her? Did Battler ever see her or talk to her? No, she didn't exist. She was merely a fantasy thing. Meanwhile Battler really did speak to Shannon, Kanon and even Beatrice.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-15, 19:42   Link #30029
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
I don't know about if a "proper" parallel needs to be drawn for the comparison to work, but I certainly do agree that Beatrice's stories are not at all sophisticated stories once you understand them. I wouldn't call them crap per se, just extremely childish. Just semantics, I know; I guess I don't see a reason to hold Beatrice to standards of good writing.
The problem is we're apparently called to investigate on those stories and many of us were all caught up by them and tried to solve and explain them rationally.
Instead... well, the whole Umineko starts looking like the story of a girl who wanted to catch the attention of a boy so she made up a story about some people they both know who are REALLY in a dangerous situation and asked him to think up a way to help them, then she complains if he doesn't pay her any attention.

Battler really believed that solving the game boards would really help his family while the readers were lead to believe solving the gameboards would lead us to some sort of logic solution or clues to solve Prime.

It turns out that solving the gameboard wasn't the real point as the culprit's motive isn't the one we should figure out, nor Prime matters as there are too few hints to really solve it.

What we were supposed to figure out is that Beato, who can be very well a fragment of Battler's imagination, was trying to catch Battler's attention presenting him an apparent way to save his family that actually is just a fantasy and won't help them at all, in which she's starring as a Mary Sue killer.

Okay, so this is a brutal summary and, if done differently it wouldn't have been so bad as a plot but, presented as it is, it sort of make me feel as if most of Umineko's plot wasn't really necessary.
It's too... rondabout, for a lack of better term.

It's fine in a mystery to trick the reader into thinking that someone is innocent but when you trick the reader into what he has to solve... well, it's not so fun. At least for me.
And it's a pity because Umineko has a lot of good points... but the ones that are bad are also pretty big.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 00:24   Link #30030
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
So what's the motive for Gohda's murder?
The same motive as for murdering Natsuhi, George, and Kumasawa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
I've always thought Eva was an accomplice and that was a moking message to her 'you chose to cooperate with me for the money... in exchange you lost your husband and son'
I guess that works, if your theory is "Eva was a paid accomplice", but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
At the end of Ep 3 is said that Eva survived the game, while the status of Jessica is left unknown. Of course it's possible she was also left to blow up.
Well yeah, it's just that someone listed "Missing" in the TIPS usually just means "left to blow up", so why would it be different in this one case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Well, in EP6 Ange mentioned in inner monologue how Banquet even showed how Eva escaped to the Kuwadorian.
Ah, good point, I forgot about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
But I actually think it's more the writer's "motive" being discussed in EP7 than the motive of the culprit of the games. Like how in Our Confessions Beatrice doesn't "confess" how she murders everyone so much as she "confesses" how she arranges the story.

I think these are legitimate questions, but I also think RK07 raised them intentionally. Again I would like to refer to Bern's game in EP8, and its juxtaposition with Ange's experiences on the same game's gameboard.
Well, two things. Firstly, something that's always stood out to me is Evatrice's argument about Kyrie's "strange behavior" in Banquet, 'cause it's apparently a legit method of arguing for the Witch side (and thinking on it, Battler seems to have taken a retroactive action similar to Erika, along the lines of "well let's just say that I'd examined her corpse thoroughly, at that time."). However, Virgilia points out that that method of pointing out behavior was a "rare attack, one that you [Beato] never use." So while we have Our Confessions kinda gives us that Beatrice will try to prepare reasonable setups for peoples behavior, we also kinda have that she's willing to disregard that, and jam a square piece of logic into a round hole just to complete the arrangement.

The second thing, of course, is that just because the author acknowledges something, doesn't excuse it. After all, there are pages (and pages, and pages...) of text talking about the relationship between the author and reader, and how admittedly roundabout and silly Beato's troll-logic was, and that the cornerstone of the solution is really really questionable ... and also how we decide whether something is even worth reading or not ...

I'unno, it sort of feels like "Hey I baked this cake for you. Well, it's kinda mushy and gross towards the middle, but I made it because I love you so much and I hope you like it."
"Well that's great and I'll certainly accept it ... but you don't really expect me to eat all the way into the middle part ... right?"
AWKWARD STARING CONTEST.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 07:05   Link #30031
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
I'unno, it sort of feels like "Hey I baked this cake for you. Well, it's kinda mushy and gross towards the middle, but I made it because I love you so much and I hope you like it."
"Well that's great and I'll certainly accept it ... but you don't really expect me to eat all the way into the middle part ... right?"
AWKWARD STARING CONTEST.
Now the girl will run into a corner and cry while claiming that you don't love her enough.
You're an insensitive bastard Kealym, you should do like the usual main character of anime do and eat it all even if it will give you stomach cramps later.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 08:55   Link #30032
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
The same motive as for murdering Natsuhi, George, and Kumasawa.
The question was 'what's the motive?' not 'who shared the same motive for being murdered?'

Also Ryukishi said that in George's case it was love suicide. I seriously doubt the same can be applied to Gohda.
And Yasu had a motive to kill Natsuhi, which was that Natushi tried to kill her first.... which Gohda didn't.

Kumasawa (Genji and Najo) can claim they've saved Yasu but actually they also covered up for Natushi and condemned Yasu to be a servant for the person who tried to murder her when she actually could have been the heir to the house.
And again, Gohda never did anything as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Well yeah, it's just that someone listed "Missing" in the TIPS usually just means "left to blow up", so why would it be different in this one case?
Yasu's still alive and there's a lot of time before the bomb will explode while in all the other episodes she's already dead or the bomb is about to explode so she might feel like finishing the work instead than just helping Jessica to hide.

Eva is also still alive and has just killed Battler. Either she did it because she wanted to murder everyone, so why should she spare Jessica and Nanjo (she's not aware he's already dead) or because she believed him to be the mastermind.

In that case she wouldn't think to abandon Jessica and Nanjo but to save them. However once she goes back and find Nanjo dead she can only assume Jessica killed him as everyone else is dead and Battler never had the time to murder Nanjo as he was with her. Ergo Jessica is the mastermind, she would think she was mistaken into thinking it was Battler and Jessica would end up meeting the same fate as Battler.

And why can't be different? After all Krauss too was declared missing in Ep 5 but then it turned out he'd been killed during it.

Last edited by jjblue1; 2012-08-16 at 09:06.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 09:04   Link #30033
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
I don't know about if a "proper" parallel needs to be drawn for the comparison to work, but I certainly do agree that Beatrice's stories are not at all sophisticated stories once you understand them. I wouldn't call them crap per se, just extremely childish. Just semantics, I know; I guess I don't see a reason to hold Beatrice to standards of good writing.
Why the hell shouldn't we? Especially when the main story itself seems to hold her work out as special somehow. Nobody calls them the easy stories of a rank amateur, not even someone like Will who is clearly an expert. Sure, he was going easy, but he seemed to respect the work enough not to criticize it for being flawed in construction and execution. He also seemed to believe in the motive, given that he was the one ranting about how important that was. Which I just don't see him doing if he's actually the person he's characterized as being unless Ryukishi believes that Will would believe the message bottle stories are well-written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker View Post
Ah yes, but as I said I'm not sure she (who is the most developed of the non-Yasu personalities) can count at all, as who met her? Did Battler ever see her or talk to her? No, she didn't exist. She was merely a fantasy thing. Meanwhile Battler really did speak to Shannon, Kanon and even Beatrice.
He could have though. On a substantive level, they're all equivalent (as they're all purely fictionalized constructs). And Ange did see EVA-Beatrice, technically, even if Battler didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Well, two things. Firstly, something that's always stood out to me is Evatrice's argument about Kyrie's "strange behavior" in Banquet, 'cause it's apparently a legit method of arguing for the Witch side (and thinking on it, Battler seems to have taken a retroactive action similar to Erika, along the lines of "well let's just say that I'd examined her corpse thoroughly, at that time."). However, Virgilia points out that that method of pointing out behavior was a "rare attack, one that you [Beato] never use." So while we have Our Confessions kinda gives us that Beatrice will try to prepare reasonable setups for peoples behavior, we also kinda have that she's willing to disregard that, and jam a square piece of logic into a round hole just to complete the arrangement.
The Kyrie argument honestly never made any sense to me. It's basically making an argument about Kyrie's mental state not allowing for Reason X, which is completely pointless because the human side can just suggest she had a second reason, Reason Y, which she had not disclosed to anyone. If that is discounted, then she had Reason Z, and so on ad infinitum. And if you argue she would never take the action she took under any circumstances (which EVA-Beatrice didn't do, but let's pretend), that would be a Logic Error unless you just admit that characters can do things for no reason.

If you can make the moral argument in red about the characters then essentially you could argue something stupid like it isn't in Jessica's character to commit murder and just expect that to stand up as truth. Maybe it could be used as gold truth, but not red truth. Besides, doesn't the Game Master have the right to alter parameters? What if I declare, as Game Master, that the characters have completely different personalities this time and will conform to those personalities rather than the "expected" ones? What if I decide that telling Rosa a preprogrammed code phrase sends her into a homicidal rage? If I can elevate these things to the status of red truth, I'm now getting into territory where I'm not just defining facts of the puzzle, but reasoning. It's fine to have rules that guide reasoning, but they should be based in fact circumstances and decipherable (such as the purple text in ep8). Saying Kyrie wouldn't do something for one particular reason is meaningless if she could have done it for any reason... and she could have, otherwise a witch essentially really was controlling her behavior (and/or she was behaving with mindless arbitrariness).
__________________
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 2012-08-16, 10:32   Link #30034
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
Kumasawa (Genji and Najo) can claim they've saved Yasu but actually they also covered up for Natushi and condemned Yasu to be a servant for the person who tried to murder her when she actually could have been the heir to the house.
And again, Gohda never did anything as such.
And where exactly would Yasu have got the idea that Natsuhi tried to kill her from?

She wasn't old enough to remember what happened, that's for sure. It's extremely unlikely that Genji, Kumasawa or Nanjo told her so, even if they thought it, they wouldn't tell, what good would that bring? And in the first place what proof do they have that Natsuhi actually pushed the maid? They weren't there when it happened, for all they know it might be entirely possible that it was actually an accident like Natsuhi claimed however unlikely it is.

Yasu could have been told that Natsuhi didn't accept her and then reasoned that Natsuhi might have pushed the maid down the cliff. But that would be nothing more than a mere conjecture and to stretch that into a reason to kill is paranoia, in other words: madness.


The bottom line is I think you and Renall are trying too much to find individual reasons for Yasu to kill people when it is evident that it's Battler's return that caused her to get to that decision. In other words she would have done the same with any people that happened to be on that island simply because they were there. I think that whenever it was said that the victims were chosen by fate it was actually true. She didn't care who, she just needed people to die to create her mystery. Her motive has absolutely nothing to do with anything she might have against those who happened to be her victims.

Killing them is a mean to an end, not her purpose.

And yes, that means she's a sociopath, but I can't really see how you can dodge that.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 10:38   Link #30035
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
And yes, that means she's a sociopath, but I can't really see how you can dodge that.
If she's a sociopath, everything Will said about finding the heart is pointless, because the act was heartless to begin with.

I'm not saying that might not be true, I'm just saying it's thematically inconsistent if we're supposed to feel sorry for somebody who places no value in any existence but her own and is willing to kill whoever happens to be around to satisfy her own desires.
__________________
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 2012-08-16, 11:00   Link #30036
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
We're supposed to be understanding of a man who raped her own daughter and to remember him as a good and loving grandpa. That's how it rolls with Ryuukishi, remember: good friends will help you carrying and hiding corpses that you might have left around!

Again in meakashi's commentary he directly asked the readers if they think they can understand and forgive the "culprit" in spite of everything that she did, and this is before you learn that there was a "purupikopyo" that caused her to become insane.

If there is a common them in Higurashi, Umineko and Ookamikakushi is that Ryuukishi wants us to be understanding of people that for some reasons ended up becoming mass murderers. With Umineko he just pushed it further.

Even if you think madness itself cannot be understood, and it's not entirely true, what you are supposed to understand is the love that caused that madness.

Now I don't think that Ryuukishi really achieved his purpose this time, and it's clear from his interview that there are a lot of people that didn't buy all that and that he is aware of it.

The way he tried to explain that is borderline stupid and offensive in my opinion. Like saying that girls are more likely to understand it, implying that females are more likely to understand why would someone kill for love, except it's almost always men that kill for "love" reasons.
And again the implication that those who cannot understand that have probably never experienced love. That's like bullshit man... but whatever, no point in beating a dead horse. My point here is to analyze and understand the story, and to do that I need to understand the author, however wacky his mind his.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 11:18   Link #30037
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
And where exactly would Yasu have got the idea that Natsuhi tried to kill her from?
Didn't Nanjo, Genji and Kumasawa told her what happened to her? That she 'fell' from a cliff and was saved? [Ep 7 Teaparty] and didn't Ep 5 showed that she deemed Natsuhi responsible?
And after all they must have given her some explanations on how they knew she was Kinzo's daughter (or son) but they never returned her to him. It's either telling her: we were afraid your dad would rape you or the wife of your stepbrother might have attempted to kill you once.

Sure, there's no proof Natsuhi really attempted to kill her (unless actually when Genji arrived the maid was still alive and said 'the mistress pushed me' before dying) but since they tried to keep Yasu's presence hidden from Natsuhi as well they likely didn't trust her much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
The bottom line is I think you and Renall are trying too much to find individual reasons for Yasu to kill people when it is evident that it's Battler's return that caused her to get to that decision. In other words she would have done the same with any people that happened to be on that island simply because they were there. I think that whenever it was said that the victims were chosen by fate it was actually true. She didn't care who, she just needed people to die to create her mystery. Her motive has absolutely nothing to do with anything she might have against those who happened to be her victims.

Killing them is a mean to an end, not her purpose.

And yes, that means she's a sociopath, but I can't really see how you can dodge that.
I don't know about Renall but I wouldn't be so interested in her motive, hadn't motive be a big theme in Umineko.

In other mysteries I'm perfectly fine with people killing for money, revenge, sociopathy, whatever.

Umineko however ranted so much about the heart that either there's one or I'm going to be disappointed. I'm supposed to feel sympathy for Yasu, to 'understand her'. If she's just a sociopath I don't think I can.

I'm searching for Yasu a motive that's more than that, that's more than 'she couldn't deal with the fact that her childhood crush had some serious family issues and therefore didn't come back to see if she wanted him to pick her up, never mention he would have been 13 only'.

Hell, Rosa was dumped after being made pregnant and being asked to pay for a lot of money and through she's not managing well she's still not going on a murdering rampage.

Kyrie lost the man she loved/obsessed over and the child she was about to have from him was a stillborn (or so she thought) and likely she might have ruined her reputation among her family who wasn't exactly nice. Plus it's probable for a while Rudolf also tried to cut relations and even though Kyrie thought about killing, her target was only Asumu.

Yasu let her drama grow out of proportions and her solution won't bring any gain for her (if Kyrie kills asumu and doesn't get caught she might get Rudolf... if Yasu kills everyone, herslef and Battler included she gets nothing).

After being told I've have to understand Yasu's heart, if PieceYasu's heart is this one (and Will talked with PieceYasu), well, it really wasn't worth the effort.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 11:20   Link #30038
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
We're supposed to be understanding of a man who raped her own daughter and to remember him as a good and loving grandpa. That's how it rolls with Ryuukishi, remember: good friends will help you carrying and hiding corpses that you might have left around!
Except that might not be true. And the same was, I presumed based on the actual characterization, the case for Yasu. So that's why I was operating on the notion I could understand her and Kinzo, because I thought they may not have actually done the things that they were accused of doing.
__________________
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 2012-08-16, 12:53   Link #30039
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
We're supposed to be understanding of a man who raped her own daughter and to remember him as a good and loving grandpa.
I don't think you're supposed to approve what he did to Beato (if he did it as Ryukishi took care to raise the doubt it migh have been consensual) but to accept with years he felt sorry for it, he regretted it and tried to make up for it. He didn't stay completely evil forever and maybe he wasn't completely evil to begin with.

There's plenty of characters (the Innominato of the Betrothed) and real people that made something wrong and then redeemed themselves. Understanding Kinzo isn't excusing him for what he did but understanding the whole of him.

In short, Kinzo wasn't a complete monster though surely he did some things that are hard to forgive.
Forgivance however is up to Yasu and Ange as they were also at the receiving ends of his attempt to make up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
If there is a common them in Higurashi, Umineko and Ookamikakushi is that Ryuukishi wants us to be understanding of people that for some reasons ended up becoming mass murderers. With Umineko he just pushed it further.

Even if you think madness itself cannot be understood, and it's not entirely true, what you are supposed to understand is the love that caused that madness.
There are many stories that use the theme that something happened to people that caused them to snap and commit one or more murders.
When they're done well you might feel sympathy for the character as yet, he's seeing the world in an insane way but since you got to see the why he's seeing it as such, you can 'excuse' him.

In Meakashi-hen Shion, had 3 of her nails ripped while her head was covered so that she wouldn't see and she was struggling. The first actually she ripped herself because otherwise she believed 3 people could end up being killed. By her family. note that nail ripping is so painful that in the past was used as a form of torture.

It's a highly traumatic situation that is expected to cause a trauma in a normal person which can (or can not) develop into paranoia and insanity.
One doesn't forgive her for what she will do afterward but it doesn't come as a surprise that her mind is screwed up even when one doesn't know of the Hinamizawa syndrome.

In Umineko there's not the presence of a clear highly traumatic situation at which normal people might react with madness and that we could guess beforehand using Ep 1-4. If we use Ep 5-8 we can make speculations but again Umineko is so pretty vague that it's hard to pin the trauma and follow how it developed into 'let's kill everyone'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
My point here is to analyze and understand the story, and to do that I need to understand the author, however wacky his mind his.
I think that's what we're trying to do. The problem here is that, as far as I'm involved, I reached a point in which I'm stuck. If I'll skip it just saying 'the author messed up/is messed up' it won't help me to analyze it and find an explanation for it. Actually it's the end of the reasoning and the solution is, simply put, disappointing.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-16, 13:13   Link #30040
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
~~~
Will understood the meta-motive. That's all. There's no point in him criticizing a childish work.
Wanderer 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 21:35.


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