[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[AuraTwilight]

In fact, the only entity that ever attempted to restore Battler was Touya himself. I don't think it's fair to place the blame on YasuKo for suffering that Touya's own sense of moral obligation caused him.

To clarify, I'm not blaming YasuKo for the suffering itself so much as allowing it to go on when she has the ability to do something about it.

Maybe Yasu disagrees, but to me, loving someone definitively includes not wanting someone's suffering to continue unnecessarily, and since his entire situation is her fault she has a moral obligation to do something about it regardless.

I generally am too, but then again, how useful was Occam's Razor in solving ShKanon?

In fairness, ShKanon is compliant with Occam's Razor as soon as EP6 happens, if not earlier.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by haguruma

My point was more in pointing out the deliberate separation and cherry-picking of theories depending on the situation. People seem less inclined to find one straight answer, but try to twist elements around to work out the perfect solution for one aspect of the scenario.

Hum... I think that, unless the discussion is very linear and a person wants to expose his solution of Umineko with a long essay it's pretty hard for another person to check if person X is picking theories according to the situation or merely revised a precedent theory and applied it to all the game.

After all a person can acknowledge he made a mistake in his previous theory and... well discharge it for another that, according to him, is the one stright answer.

If we never revised theories... well I don't think we would get very far and it would make discussing Umineko pretty pointless...

Originally Posted by haguruma

But wouldn't that imply that he knew the entirety of the answer from the very beginning, even if only subconsciously? And isn't that only possible if he is also the culprit? I'm against creating a clear hierarchical order of reality＞fantasy , I am for an intertwined relationship between both, in which events within our reality are at the same time occurring on the meta-plane.

I'm not sure I'm following you.

My theory is:
- Tohya solved the message bottles
- Tohya has recovered some memories of Rokkenjima and the people in it
- he used his solution, his knowledge of facts post Rokkenjima and his memories to write the tales
- it's possible that in the tales there are some facts that really happened on Rokkenjima... however I wish you good luck in figuring out which one exactly are.
- No idea how much memory Tohya recovered while writing the tales and how much in denial he is about being Battler. The Meta might imply some turning points but as this depends on how you interpret them for now I'll let this up to speculation.

So how Tohya writing forgeries based on Yasu's messages would insure he knows who the culprit in Prime is?
But Tohya as a writer knows who the culprit is in his tale... and the culprit is Yasu.

It's entirely possible that Tohya didn't wrote his tales giving at the end a straight answer so that when you read Banquet, Alliance and End you don't know who exactly the culprit is. It's possible in Banquet he tried to use the popular theory of Eva-culprit to 'cover up' his truth, so that people that read it were faced with a setting in which Eva was definitely suspicious and maybe she even killed Battler in the book too, but an Eva solution didn't solve every murder so that the fantasy of the witch is preserved unless you attack Banquet with the Yasu-culprit theory.

Originally Posted by haguruma

Let's take the TIP Witches' Tanabata as an example. Bernkastel is taking influence on Ange's attitude towards Eva by promising her mother's definite death as soon as she accepts Eva as a substitute. This tells us more than just the struggle of Touya himself, but also reveals other characters' problems.

All I can say about the meta is that it seems more focused on the psychological aspect of the characters. However I would consider Ange's meeting with Bern not meta but a fantasy scene, similar to when Shannon meets Beato in Ep 2 and Beato tells her to break the mirror in the shrine or when in Ep 5 Beato tells Natsuhi with her magic she'll resurrect Kinzo.

It's just an interpretation though. As I said I'm still considering theories over the Meta as none seems satisfactory enough as of now.

Originally Posted by haguruma

I would actually say that within the context of Umineko the gamemaster and the author are to be regarded on different levels. Some scenes simply don't make sense to me if they are simply creations of the mind, so at least to a certain degree, the metaworld is as real as the reality Touya and Ange exist in. The meta beings act out what is written but then again these changes in the metaworld influence what is written.
So the gamemaster (if not all challengers in the metaworld) is representative of the attitude and thought process with which that particular gameboard is approached. In that sense the author is more the gamemaker.

It can be that gamemaker is a better world for 'author'.
As in the Meta the gamemaster was also the one who made up the story I honestly didn't bother searching for a new definition.

Originally Posted by haguruma

It wasn't even the message bottle that gave the initial spark but Eva selling Kinzo's collection to the public. Probably, without this incentive, the fisherman would have also never come out with the story about him discovering the message bottle.
But considering that Eva did not sell the collection until she was in dire need of money, doesn't that hint towards the events of the forgery craze being even less controlled than many people seem to assume?

I like to think that the events of the forgery craze were pretty coincidental and not planned.
Sure, likely Eva had been suspected and people in her and Ange's inner circle might have continued suspecting her even without the forgery craze but, after 10 years, if it hadn't been for the forgerers and the witch hunters likely the interest of the rest of the world would have died down which probably would have been good for Ange as she wouldn't have to continuously deal with conspiration theories.

Interesting enough the fact that Eva was having financial problems might also prove she didn't receive the bank account code or refused to use it or it was only a thing presented in the games (this would imply that Ange's talking with people receiving it might have been purely fictional).

Anyone has suggestions? Theories? Whatever else?

[DaBackpack]

I personally disagree with applying Occam's Razor when it comes to storytelling. In general, I think it's useful for picking hypotheses in the natural sciences, but it shouldn't become the main justification for a theory in this story. Its use is hard to avoid in a story like Umineko, though.

That said, Shkanon is still the most plausible explanation for thematic and logical reasons. And personally, I think Ikuko was -intended- to be Yasu, and the moral issue was an oversight on Ryukishi's side. That said I choose to believe that Ikuko was a stranger for reasons described already.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Interesting enough the fact that Eva was having financial problems might also prove she didn't receive the bank account code or refused to use it or it was only a thing presented in the games (this would imply that Ange's talking with people receiving it might have been purely fictional).

The third option would imply that the information about Eva's financial situation, the message bottles, even Eva's survival is likely fictional itself. This would make up a vicious circle of assumptions we have no necessity to make.

[AuraTwilight]

And personally, I think Ikuko was -intended- to be Yasu, and the moral issue was an oversight on Ryukishi's side.

I'd really like to think where you see this intended, considering that there's literally nothing connecting them except a lose name pun that applies to "Toya Hachijou."

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I was finally to find the passage relating to my critique of the post-authorship theory.

Oh, that. Yeah I remembered that part more or less correctly. I just thought that when you said the police "dated" it that they actually tested the age of the paper or ink or bottle itself or something. My fault.

But rereading it again I can pinpoint the thing about that particular part that I've always found strange: That is that it's the bottle the fisherman found that caused the bottle the police had to go public. What caused the police to release their bottle only after the fisherman's was found?

Originally Posted by haguruma

Like Kealym already pointed out quite sharply regarding a Yasuko theory, a post-authorship theory also requires us to discard given information without any reason to doubt it beyond the general possibility to doubt anything.

I guess I'm just more a fan of Knox's 9th than of Knox's 8th.

I don't simply 'discard given information', I just absorb it precisely. It's not "the police found a bottle", but rather "the police reported having found a bottle some years ago, and produced something that appeared to be that bottle." That's the 'information given'. I don't see a need for a hint that the police are lying, because I don't assume they are telling the truth. It's simply a matter or the relative plausibility of their story being true or false. Of course, all other things being equal, the police are a very trustworthy organization. But there are other factors.

Ange in that same scene later surmised that the writer would probably have to be the culprit based on what she knew. So, three possibilities:

A) The information she has is good, and her reasoning is good. This means the writer really is the culprit. Logistically, this is the most sensible explanation, by far. However, I find this difficult to accept from a narrative standpoint.
B) The information she has is good, but her reasoning is bad. I don't think it is, because I share her reasoning that pre-incident authorship points to the writer being the culprit.
C) The information she has is bad, but her reasoning is good. I'm pretty sure this means that the police lied.

I prefer 'C' & 'B' to 'A' for entirely thematic reasons. And I prefer 'C' to 'B' for both logistic and thematic reasons.

Basically, aside from discarding 'A' rather arbitrarily, my theory is actually based on deductive reasoning.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

To clarify, I'm not blaming YasuKo for the suffering itself so much as allowing it to go on when she has the ability to do something about it.

Assuming we more or less agree that his moral obligation to Ange was the source of Touya's suffering, I'd be interested to hear what "ability" YasuKo might have to alleviate it.

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I personally disagree with applying Occam's Razor when it comes to storytelling.

Indeed. For example, Occam's Razor points squarely at Yasu as the culprit for Prime. It "ignores the heart", I guess.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'd really like to think where you see this intended, considering that there's literally nothing connecting them except a lose name pun that applies to "Toya Hachijou."

loosely in what way?

EDIT:
Bought what's out so far of the EP8 manga. Just finished chapter 6, and here's a couple spoilers got from it for anyone who doesn't already know them.

Spoiler:

All these spoilers are about Legend.

• Natsuhi's gun was never loaded and she didn't even realize it. Tee-hee.
  
• Rudolf's comment about "being killed tonight" was confirmed to be about the reaction he expected to get from Kyrie after telling her about Battler's birth. No surprise there, but nice to have confirmation.
• The content of the final letter that lured Natsuhi into the hall:

  Ushiromiya Natsuhi-sama
  
  Let's settle which of us is most suitable to be the family head.
  I shall be waiting in front of my portrait.

  Pretty much what you'd expect, but, again, confirmation is nice.
  

[Drifloon]

Yasuko discusion stopped interesting me a while ago, but this EP8 news is very nice.

Natsuhi's gun was never loaded and she didn't even realize it.

Huh, I've believed this for a long time but I never expected to get actual confirmation on it. Awesome. Was there any confirmation (or even just implication) regarding whether Natsuhi was an accomplice in that episode? I've always been kind of on the fence about that...

Rudolf's comment about "being killed tonight" was confirmed to be about the reaction he expected to get from Kyrie after telling her about Battler's birth.

Didn't the VN EP8 basically confirm this anyway?

Ushiromiya Natsuhi-sama

Let's settle which of us is most suitable to be the family head.
I shall be waiting in front of my portrait.

Wow, I never expected Ryukishi to actually tell us what was in that letter. That's amazing.

I've actually always been against the conclusion that the letter was addressed to Natsuhi specifically, because I figured the culprit would have no way of knowing whether she would be the first to notice and read it, but I guess I've been proved wrong on this one!

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Drifloon

Wow, I never expected Ryukishi to actually tell us what was in that letter. That's amazing.

I've actually always been against the conclusion that the letter was addressed to Natsuhi specifically, because I figured the culprit would have no way of knowing whether she would be the first to notice and read it, but I guess I've been proved wrong on this one!

This is actually one point where I wonder about whether that's a screw-up for exactly that reason. Even if we assume that the letter was maneuvered in such a way that Natsuhi was likely to find it first, how could it be known whether or not she'd read it on her own and immediately leave? What if she decided to share it or read it out loud? Also, when did that letter even get written? Does Beatrice carry stationery around?

It's a good thing she was taunting Natsuhi and not somebody of marginal intelligence like Eva or Kyrie. "I'll wait in the entrance hall" is practically code for "circle around from the other exit to the parlor and shoot me in the back of the head" for anyone with tactical sense. Not that this would've helped if the gun weren't loaded, though I imagine Kyrie would've checked that.

[RandomAvatarFan]

After watching through EP4, I realized that they said that one of the bottles was found on the island, and the other was found at sea later by the fishermen.

Yet, EP1 ends with the bottle being found five years later.

I was a big proponent of Bottles = Episodes, but now this makes the ending to EP1 make no sense whatsoever.

However, it does imply pre-incident authorship if the bottle was already there.


I think someone made a joke about the contents of Natsuhi's letter when we were speculating about it earlier, mentioning the portrait specifically.

As far as the fact that Natsuhi's gun was never loaded... wow, that wasn't anything I've ever expected. And I thought the VNs did confirm what Rudolf's "I will be killed tonight." meant.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by RandomAvatarFan

As far as the fact that Natsuhi's gun was never loaded... wow, that wasn't anything I've ever expected. And I thought the VNs did confirm what Rudolf's "I will be killed tonight." meant.

The gun not being loaded is easy to imagine in one of two scenarios:

• Natsuhi is an accomplice. Beatrice gave her the gun to boost her authority and ability to control survivors, and to ensure she was fearless when threatening people (since she couldn't follow through, so no one was at risk). But of course she wasn't foolish enough to load it for her. This makes Natsuhi's final act seem like deliberate suicide though, as she'd know or at least suspect she's going to be killed.
• Natsuhi is not an accomplice. We know Beatrice controls access to the guns. If she left guns in the study for appearances' sake, she probably would've been smart enough not to leave any ammo. Natsuhi found the gun but couldn't find ammunition for it, so she's bluffing the whole time. Thus her confrontation with Beatrice may have been intended to bluff her as well, unaware that Beatrice was the one who ensured there wasn't any ammo accessible.

EDIT: Or in the alternative, Natsuhi could have loaded the gun and deliberately chose not to. I suppose that's also possible.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'd really like to think where you see this intended, considering that there's literally nothing connecting them except a lose name pun that applies to "Toya Hachijou."

I might just be misinterpreting everything, but here's how I see it.

EP1 and EP2 are retellings of the events (or alternate interpretations) by some author (PRESUMABLY Yasu). EP3-6 are supposedly forgeries by Hachijo Tohya. But what is the Meta-World, and how come EP2 and the forgeries share the same continuity?

EP2 is really an interesting case. It is the intersection between "message bottle" and "forgery". In other words, the themes of the entirety of Umineko and the Shannon/Kanon deal is directly addressed in EP2. I think that EP2 is actually a "forgery" directly based on the message bottle.
Think of it this way: if EP2's message bottle made any mention of Shannon and Kanon's love troubles (the beginning of EP2) then the 1998 characters would have a strong lead of Yasu as the culprit or would at least make special mention of them. Because this does not seem to be the case, I think EP2 is also a forgery in some sense. That is, EP2 is just a "story" built into the events of the second message bottle. EP1 is straight mystery, but since Beatrice/Battler make explicit mention of EP1's events in the later Episodes, maybe EP1 is a forgery too?

I personally imagine EP1-EP6 (maybe further?) as a series of forgeries by Hachijo Tohya. EP1-EP2 are based on the message bottles, whereas the rest are either based "the result" (Eva surviving in 1998) or are pure fabrications. THAT is why we are given a straight thematic continuity ("Yasu is the culprit because of the love duel").

Did Hachijo Tohya construct the Shkanontrice solution out of thin air? What is the purpose of such a random solution from an authorial position? (lolRyukishi aside)

I personally think that Ikuko "drove the Hachijo Tohya team to write with Shkanon as the solution because SHE HERSELF wanted Battler-Tohya to remember." This makes her a colossal asshole, but I personally find this to make sense with my interpretation of the visual novels.

Of course, the fundamental assumption behind all of this is that the meta-world is a part of the forgeries as a structure for continuity. The meta-world could ALSO be detached from the forgeries and could actually represent the interactions between various forces in 1998+ (that is, it is pure metaphor: Battler = Tohya, Beatrice = "Yasu" or possibly Ikuko, etc.)

I know this isn't terribly convincing, I don't think I did a good job describing it. But that's how I interpreted it. What is the consensus about the meta-world?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Bought what's out so far of the EP8 manga. Just finished chapter 6, and here's a couple spoilers got from it for anyone who doesn't already know them. All these spoilers are about Legend.

You're awesome.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Natsuhi's gun was never loaded and she didn't even realize it. Tee-hee.

Oh, Natsuhi... you never had a chance... I wonder if the same applied to Rosa... though I think in Ep 3 Rudolf and Kyrie would have realized if the guns were loaded or not as they're painted like gun experts...

Originally Posted by Wanderer

The content of the final letter that lured Natsuhi into the hall:Pretty much what you'd expect, but, again, confirmation is nice.

So the letter existed. I remember there was a theory going on in the past saying it was possible the letter didn't exist... (I don't remember it well though)

It's nice to know it really existed.

Originally Posted by Renall

This is actually one point where I wonder about whether that's a screw-up for exactly that reason. Even if we assume that the letter was maneuvered in such a way that Natsuhi was likely to find it first, how could it be known whether or not she'd read it on her own and immediately leave? What if she decided to share it or read it out loud? Also, when did that letter even get written? Does Beatrice carry stationery around?

Well, considering how prideful Natsuhi is and how protective she is of the children it's possible Yasu decided to bet on that. In Ep 1 she seems to like to bet, as when she bet George wouldn't look at Shannon's corpse in the sheed. Once Kanon is assumed to be dead he had all the time to go get the paper and write the letter.

Actually she might have done it even after she killed Nanjo and Co.

We know they went to check because they heard Maria singing... but we don't know if the phonecall came from that phone. It's possible the trick here is similar to the one used with Jessica. Once she left the room and closed it with her key she went to another phone put on a tape Maria's voice singing a song and then did the call. When Battler and Co reached the room and found Maria singing and the phone in such position they didn't suspect the call could have come from another room.

Originally Posted by Renall

It's a good thing she was taunting Natsuhi and not somebody of marginal intelligence like Eva or Kyrie. "I'll wait in the entrance hall" is practically code for "circle around from the other exit to the parlor and shoot me in the back of the head" for anyone with tactical sense. Not that this would've helped if the gun weren't loaded, though I imagine Kyrie would've checked that.

Natsuhi somehow looks like the easiest to trick in the group and, more often than not, her pride is her downfall.

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I know this isn't terribly convincing, I don't think I did a good job describing it. But that's how I interpreted it. What is the consensus about the meta-world?

I don't think there's a consensus on the metaworld.

If I'm not wrong the best we all agree (I think) is that it is meaningful, it's probably some sort of psychological metaphor (though there are variations on how this applies so take this as some sort of very lose definition) and... what else?

[Renall]

We don't actually know which stories were the message bottle stories. As far as I know, Ange never explicitly entitles them or describes their contents with specificity (that is, things like "one of the message bottles features a First Twilight where all the parents but Rosa are killed in the chapel and their bellies stuffed with candy," something presumably unique to Turn).

So it's possible both Legend and Turn aren't the message bottle stories... but they're sort of portrayed as being that, so...

[Thunder Book]

It's been a while since I've read the Episodes, but did the letter at the end of Episode 1 that was signed by "Maria Ushiromiya" actually accompany a message bottle story?

[theacefrehley]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I might just be misinterpreting everything, but here's how I see it.

EP1 and EP2 are retellings of the events (or alternate interpretations) by some author (PRESUMABLY Yasu). EP3-6 are supposedly forgeries by Hachijo Tohya. But what is the Meta-World, and how come EP2 and the forgeries share the same continuity?

EP2 is really an interesting case. It is the intersection between "message bottle" and "forgery". In other words, the themes of the entirety of Umineko and the Shannon/Kanon deal is directly addressed in EP2. I think that EP2 is actually a "forgery" directly based on the message bottle.
Think of it this way: if EP2's message bottle made any mention of Shannon and Kanon's love troubles (the beginning of EP2) then the 1998 characters would have a strong lead of Yasu as the culprit or would at least make special mention of them. Because this does not seem to be the case, I think EP2 is also a forgery in some sense. That is, EP2 is just a "story" built into the events of the second message bottle. EP1 is straight mystery, but since Beatrice/Battler make explicit mention of EP1's events in the later Episodes, maybe EP1 is a forgery too?

I personally imagine EP1-EP6 (maybe further?) as a series of forgeries by Hachijo Tohya. EP1-EP2 are based on the message bottles, whereas the rest are either based "the result" (Eva surviving in 1998) or are pure fabrications. THAT is why we are given a straight thematic continuity ("Yasu is the culprit because of the love duel").

Did Hachijo Tohya construct the Shkanontrice solution out of thin air? What is the purpose of such a random solution from an authorial position? (lolRyukishi aside)

I personally think that Ikuko "drove the Hachijo Tohya team to write with Shkanon as the solution because SHE HERSELF wanted Battler-Tohya to remember." This makes her a colossal asshole, but I personally find this to make sense with my interpretation of the visual novels.

Of course, the fundamental assumption behind all of this is that the meta-world is a part of the forgeries as a structure for continuity. The meta-world could ALSO be detached from the forgeries and could actually represent the interactions between various forces in 1998+ (that is, it is pure metaphor: Battler = Tohya, Beatrice = "Yasu" or possibly Ikuko, etc.)

I know this isn't terribly convincing, I don't think I did a good job describing it. But that's how I interpreted it. What is the consensus about the meta-world?

If I remenber ep4 well, it is said that the bottles only cover the 2 days in rokkenjima.
The stuff that comes before is probably not included in the bottles

[AuraTwilight]

Assuming we more or less agree that his moral obligation to Ange was the source of Touya's suffering, I'd be interested to hear what "ability" YasuKo might have to alleviate it.

It's clearly not the only reason Touya is suffering, by practically his own admission. There was a stranger inside his head threatening to take over his entire goddamn identity, but that only became a major conflict after he'd been Toya for many, many years. Yasuko could've stopped it from ever reaching this point.

loosely in what way?

This part of my argument I admit isn't very strong due to fuzzy memory, but I BELIEVE the major name puns that get quoted around are how to read Toya Hachijou's name and pen name, which came up back in EP6? I remember people noticing another name pun at some point but I don't remember it, but DO remember finding it unconvincing. Does anyone know what I'm taking about?

Think of it this way: if EP2's message bottle made any mention of Shannon and Kanon's love troubles (the beginning of EP2) then the 1998 characters would have a strong lead of Yasu as the culprit or would at least make special mention of them. Because this does not seem to be the case, I think EP2 is also a forgery in some sense. That is, EP2 is just a "story" built into the events of the second message bottle. EP1 is straight mystery, but since Beatrice/Battler make explicit mention of EP1's events in the later Episodes, maybe EP1 is a forgery too?

I'm not buying it. The Witch Hunters have consistently been characterized as overlooking critical information they dismissed as unimportant, and also don't seem to care about the heart of the mystery. If Erika represents the Witch Hunter Self-Insert Mary Sue as has been conjectured before, then they would dismiss any statements of love as being filler or romanticized fantasy.

I mean, shit, they don't even bother to look into the birth records of Shannon and Kanon. They clearly don't give a shit.

Of course, the fundamental assumption behind all of this is that the meta-world is a part of the forgeries as a structure for continuity.

No. No. No. No. No.

This raises buckets of problems and doesn't give any answers. What does Meta-Ange mean and how come no one talks about her role in them? Why doesn't any Witch Hunter, ever, mention the Meta-narrative, or the implications it makes?

How come people still ask questions about things in the forgeries that the Meta-World literally spells out for us real-world readers?

Whatever the Meta-World is, I guarantee it's not part of the Forgeries. It falls apart before you even reach the EP6 meta-meta-meta narrative.

I know this isn't terribly convincing, I don't think I did a good job describing it. But that's how I interpreted it. What is the consensus about the meta-world?

Can't the Meta-World just be it's own thing? It's a metafictional device, it doesn't NEED an explanation beyond the symbolic and structuralist. If you must give it an in-universe definition, I personally interpret it as an actual alternate plane of existence, because every other explanation fails to answer the questions their interpretations raise while undermining otherwise solid premises about itself and what the Meta-World is being connected to.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by theacefrehley

If I remenber ep4 well, it is said that the bottles only cover the 2 days in rokkenjima.
The stuff that comes before is probably not included in the bottles

If that's so, however, it means that we have absolutely no idea whether a scene is part of a Forgery/MBS or not. For example, it's not just a layer exclusion in this case, and elements of the pre-October 4th scenes recur in Turn, so it's not just a matter of saying "the scenes where Shannon and Kanon meet Beatrice and discuss love and junk can be excised."

You can't merely remove that part, because scenes like Kanon fighting for Jessica and so forth don't make a lot of sense with those bits removed yet are definitely part of the October 4th/5th narrative. So those parts would also have to be removed or changed... meaning that, well, how do we know which parts are added in and which parts were "originally" in the Forgery?

[DaBackpack]

I mean, it seems most likely that the Meta-World is its own thing, like the upper-most layer of the story (the closest to us and Ryukishi), and exists so there's an actual consistent STORYLINE. I'm just giving my explanation for the interpretation I gave earlier. I'm not asserting it as truth, just a possibility for fun.

I don't see how it's unreasonable that Hachijo Tohya could write stories about fictional 1998's. EP3 could be a forgery, EP3's 1998 is just a fictional extrapolation based around the "real 1998".
Furthermore, the META stuff in each of them is connected, but need not have any real basis in reality. The fictional meta stuff is a part of the series that Hachijo Tohya constructed as "the means to illustrate the literary or thematic parts of the story."

Though about Meta-Ange, well, you have a point. Maybe Ikuko and Tohya had an author-battle about what they wanted the story to be about? Ikuko wanted to focus on Yasu, Tohya wanted to focus around Ange's struggle, and all of Umineko is Hachijo Tohya fighting about what the purpose of the story is (joking)

Anyway, making Ikuko = Yasu just seems like something Ryukishi would do. Not that I'm really a fan of that idea.

edit: whoa, think I got lost in my own logic, nevermind >_>

[GuestSpeaker]

Kanon deciding he loves Jessica out of nowhere and sacrificing himself with no prior motivation? Sounds like fanfiction to me...

Banquet is structured so that Yasu can kill Nanjo

So we are going with someone didn't kill Nanjo and then die (likely Kyrie)?



Also what is the Jessica room trick someone referred to?

[GuestSpeaker]

ALso I haven't thought about this theory at all yet, so it may fall apart, but maybe the metaworld is like the in-universe representation of general online theories and debate, as viewed by Touhya. Getting lost in the sea of meta could be him losing the belief that he actually knows what happened and just giving in to the general wash of theories. Angie did let herself get chewed apart after all.

Besides, the trial of Natsuhi always screamed trail be media, and meanwhile the only solid evidence Battler can argue with is "I just feel it isn't true". And we know how much this forum likes that argument.