[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Doesn't Battler explicitly describe Shannon as his first love in Episode 3?

He practically does so in Legend. It gets increasingly explicit as time goes by, but I guess people gloss over it because it's in the "boring" October 4th segments each time? But seriously, the fact that they had a closer relationship prior to Battler's departure is not hidden information. It's sitting right in the open the whole time. Of all the things Ryukishi might be accused of weaseling on, the Battler-Shannon connection most assuredly is not one of them.

[Dormin]

On the other, it is always so creepy when you realise that all their talk of the golden land equates to Shannon and Kanon talking about AT LEAST killing themselves.

Though Shannon and Kanon always talk about everyone being resurrected when reaching the golden land. This could be easily seen as a hint of Yasu not being the culprit and not intending to kill anyone.

I honestly was quite shocked to find out that large portion of people don't like chiru and consider Yasu terrible antagonist. The most negative thing about chiru was that it wasn't so much a mystery as it was a collection of hints and tools for solving the core of the mystery. I understand if someone considers Ryu a bad writer, but at this point it shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Do people hate Yasu because it was predicted beforehand or because of the motive clusterfuck? There are some points that are retarded (like people not noticing the crossdressing) but overall it was foreshadowed since the beginning so it's not like Ryu totally pulled Shkannontrice out of his ass.

In my opinion Yasu is a valid explanation for the boards, even though I strongly believe she is not the real culprit in prime (I guess that's also one point towards hating her, as this theory implies the main antagonist isn't actually the antagonist). If we consider the boards, I don't get why she is so hated as the solution.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Dormin

Do people hate Yasu because it was predicted beforehand or because of the motive clusterfuck? There are some points that are retarded (like people not noticing the crossdressing) but overall it was foreshadowed since the beginning so it's not like Ryu totally pulled Shkannontrice out of his ass.

In my opinion Yasu is a valid explanation for the boards, even though I strongly believe she is not the real culprit in prime (I guess that's also one point towards hating her, as this theory implies the main antagonist isn't actually the antagonist). If we consider the boards, I don't get why she is so hated as the solution.

I don't like her primarily because she doesn't stack up against the character she created. I think she had potential, but Ryukishi didn't realize what he had and didn't expand thematically on some of the critical issues with her character flaws. I'm not sure he even intended that she have some of those character flaws, so I'm basically just reading into the text. The character's existence was certainly properly foreshadowed... the result just wasn't very good, but I concede it could've been with better development.

And... that's the problem with Chiru. Well it's one of them. Here's the others:

• It's longer than the first four episodes but arguably tells us less about many of its core themes and most central characters. This is a large part of my criticism of the presentation of the story's moral, which I'm starting to think just appears that way because certain concepts were not properly developed.
• It's disorganized; characters appear and disappear for large gaps of time and development is sprinkled all over the place. Beatrice isn't really in 5, comes back in 6, is largely gone again in 7, and is back in 8; Battler disappears for 7; Ange has a brief role in 6 and a major role in 8 that seems to contradict her two previous appearances. Also characterization changes a lot without much reason for it; as much as people may like Erika, she can be a very inconsistent character. Seriously, compare her in ep5, ep6, and ep8, she acts differently in each in ways that cannot be explained entirely by character development (in no small part because she has none between her "death" in Dawn and reappearance in Twilight).
• Chiru has a fair bit of filler. Most of it isn't bad and if more of it were like Requiem it would probably not feel like filler at all. This ties back to undeveloped themes; basically if some of that stuff had been fleshed out better the parts that contain it would all feel like they fit properly and have a necessary purpose. That said, I still think ep5 and ep6 could've been one episode.
• Requiem, though an absolutely necessary episode in the sense that all its content matters, is at least in part out of place located where it is. I think parts of it could've been moved to other episodes as necessary to make certain bits more impactful without seriously damaging the coherency of the whole. Let's be honest, the connections between the three major sections - Will and Lion, Yasu, and the Tea Party - are tenuous at best. All are still good, important sections, but there's no reason they must all be contained n the same episode (and the penultimate one at that).
• Twilight is blatantly unfinished; as the ep8 manga is demonstrating, there's a lot more content and clarification that was obviously intended for it that just isn't in the VN version. The ending will almost certainly seem better once we actually have the full, complete version of it, but even then it suffers from a lot of the problems Chiru has in general.

[magnum12]

Count me as amongst those who didn't like Chiru and hate the Yasu culprit theory. Admittedly, a good positive for the former is that Bernkastel is an excellent villain. Hate the Shkannon theory because it plays really loosely with red, feels like just a giant servant conspiracy (a rather boring and cliche solution in the genre), and what happens when you take time to deconstruct it (note that I'm going Evangelion/Watchmen/Puella Magi Madoka Magica grade in terms of deconstruction), what it boils down into.....is not pretty.

How I went about it was by boiling down the love battle into what I felt was the core component, which can be identified by the commonalities. The core commonality IMO, is "lies", some of which can be very cruel, especially the ones regarding Jessica, which ask the question "what did she do to deserve being the victim of the worst of all the lies?"

Assuming a Rosa Prime theory, I think I may have found a way to link Battler and Eva to the cover up, or at least in terms of not letting the world know. Eva was motivated by guilt over her rather heavy contribution to pushing Rosa's mental state over the edge via extensive and cruel abusive treatment as a child. I believe it is stated that Battler knows about Rosa's past since Rudolf has told him about it. IIRC, Rudolf said something about how Rosa as a child was a vastly different person than the Rosa of 1986. All of this of course assumes a "chain of hate" + "PTSD additive factor" + high stress scenario + the word "Beatrice" having all the characteristics of a "trigger"= toxic mental time bomb that got detonated scenario.

[AuraTwilight]

Admittedly, a good positive for the former is that Bernkastel is an excellent villain.

Arguable. She's good at being EVIL, but she's not a very compelling character because she's being an asshole bitch for the sake of being an asshole bitch and she's motivated by pure malice out of fucking nowhere when she was neutral at worst in the earlier part of Umineko. From EP5 onwards she's so angry and spiteful that she can't really hold it back if she's pushed even slightly, which contradicts earlier characterization and implies that Ryukishi changed her mind about her midway through (which we technically know is true since he's admitted she was originally just gonna be a cameo callback to Higurashi).

And ontop of all that, she doesn't get any sort of comeuppance and her loss at the end of the story doesn't even cause her to learn anything or change as a character.

Assuming a Rosa Prime theory

Rosa Prime theory is stupid. It's not thematically or symbolically supported in any way and your blue about Eva's motives don't work since Eva was specifically motivated in part by protecting Ange's feelings, which implicates Ange's immediate family. However, that Eva never cracked under pressure and used the truth to hurt Ange despite their extreme bitterness, and that Eva took the secret to her grave for all time, implies that the truth was more hurtful to Eva than it was for Ange. There's only one person on Rokkenjima that Eva would put over her own happiness and heartbreak...

[Dormin]

Though we can explain her silence with very simple logic

Eva never told the truth because it was harmful directly towards herself: she was somehow involved in the killings thus making her partly at fault

I believe every implication point towards Kyrie, however, her silence is extremely logical if she was involved herself in any way in anything that happened. Eva is smart, and not going to blurt out something harmful towards herself

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

There's only one person on Rokkenjima that Eva would put over her own happiness and heartbreak...

I thought it is actually two people.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And ontop of all that, she doesn't get any sort of comeuppance and her loss at the end of the story doesn't even cause her to learn anything or change as a character.

The strangest part of all of this is that we end up getting character growth out of Lambdadelta, the last person I would've expected to get any. Hell, she probably has the most change out of any meta-character short of Battler or Ange. I'm not complaining because I kinda liked it, but why her of all people? It just makes Bern's u-turn into Snidely Whiplash territory even more noticeable.

They sort of try to explain Bern's hatred for Battler in Lambda proclaiming him a Witch of Miracles too, except (1) she was already acting like an asshole before that, and (2) you'd think she'd be well past the point of rising to Lambda's provocations, which was exactly what she was doing there. While screwing with BatBeato to spite Lambda makes sense, being so emotionally invested in it really doesn't.

But hey, Ryukishi pulled out the "lol imma cat arbitrary yo" card, so she can do whatever she wants right?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

I'm not complaining because I kinda liked it, but why her of all people? It just makes Bern's u-turn into Snidely Whiplash territory even more noticeable.

While screwing with BatBeato to spite Lambda makes sense, being so emotionally invested in it really doesn't.

But hey, Ryukishi pulled out the "lol imma cat arbitrary yo" card, so she can do whatever she wants right?

I don't know, but I found Bern not that unbelievable the way she was written, but we already all know since long ago that my and your (and Aura's) opinion diverge at several points

Bern was clearly written as a very different character when she first appeared in Episode 1 and 2, but a slight change already happened in Episode 3, when she was present at Eva Beatrice's inauguration and seduced Ange at the very end.
Still I'd say, even in retroactive continuity thinking, it doesn't make her actions in the first 2 Episodes necessarily incoherent. You could see her as being still way less involved in Beato's game but loosing herself over the course of investing more and more into it. If we simply take her meta-board characterization, and not any larger implications of her being a symbol for certain thought-processes surrounding the meta-narrative, then her sudden break of composure in EP5 makes sense in terms of her not having to restrain herself by appearing impartial anymore. Beato has been removed from the game and as long as she keeps Battler in the loop she has endless potential for enjoyment. The problem comes when Battler is moving closer to a solution because it removes her from any possible enjoyment of the game.

It has always been more about the weird sexual tension between the two witches (you could even count the things said in EP1 and 2 technically) and every other participant merely exists as a plaything or a hindrance to their pleasure. It's also hinted that Lambda finds it somehow easier to move on, which can be constructed from several ideas about what they represent (miracles vs. certainty) or any possible background of Higurashi as well, but becomes virtually unimportant in the grander scheme.

[Witch of Uncertainty]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Arguable. She's good at being EVIL, but she's not a very compelling character because she's being an asshole bitch for the sake of being an asshole bitch and she's motivated by pure malice out of fucking nowhere when she was neutral at worst in the earlier part of Umineko. From EP5 onwards she's so angry and spiteful that she can't really hold it back if she's pushed even slightly, which contradicts earlier characterization and implies that Ryukishi changed her mind about her midway through (which we technically know is true since he's admitted she was originally just gonna be a cameo callback to Higurashi).

While true, she did state in episode one that she was the cruelest witch in the entire universe back in EP1. I think her malice could be explained with her being bored with how slow Battler was and as stated in the tips, she hates people that never learn.
I actually really liked Bernkastel up until ep 8. She was too predictable in that one, but up to and including ep 7, I found her amazing.

[AuraTwilight]

While true, she did state in episode one that she was the cruelest witch in the entire universe back in EP1.

Yea, but her cruelty was pretty much chalked up to her utter apathy, which dissolvesin Chiru.

Eva never told the truth because it was harmful directly towards herself: she was somehow involved in the killings thus making her partly at fault

That kinda directly contradicts EP4's entire message.

[SonozakiUshiromiya]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

I thought it is actually two people.

Even if we discount a lot of his own words that makes George suspicous; Hideyoshi's basically a paperweight, aside from a somewhat jarring scene from Ep5. Eva likely has nothing to cover for him beside the fact he was shortsighted enough to let his company be swept from him underfoot, and that's public knowledge. Her son's engagement to a servant would be more embarassing, especially when he could fall into suspicion for it. I agree she'd cover for those two for herself, but there is very little to suggest Hideyoshi wasn't the most innocent(or uninvolved) person on the island.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yea, but her cruelty was pretty much chalked up to her utter apathy, which dissolvesin Chiru.

Was it really? I don't know I always read the "the world's most cruel witch" pretty literally towards what we later got to see and her demeanor in EP1-3 as simply holding back. It's not for nothing that she does not title herself as 一番無惨 (most cruel = emotionless) or 冷酷 (=coldhearted) but 一番残酷 (most cruel = gruesome, brutal). This isn't even going that far away if we connect her to Higurashi, as in that case she was raised out of bloodshed and carnage.

Though I still see her as a multi-layered and at least dai seems to agree with that portrayal if you look at the image-song they created for Bernkastel.

Spoiler for Human Nature is Fundamentally Good lyrics:

If perchance I appear to be a demon
let us praise me just a bit,
and grasp tightly unto these tiny, ice-cold fingers
even if blood trickles.

You see, your smiling face of days far removed
will eternally remain undiscovered.
However, if I became the villain
in due time it will...

Please, from the bottom of your heart
pour your hatred into killing this gruesome me.

These hurtful words will crumble
if the Red that sneers at this world vanishes.

Please, oh please, smile
and kill this gruesome me.
Do not feel regret,
as if you vow to kill me
the Blue that embraces the two with a shine shall descend.

Somebody, smile at me
and become aware of the unrecognizable truth (lie).
That wish for someone to grasp these overly trembling fingers,
why do you think it is this sad?!

And in a way it is true, at least when looking at Umineko from the perspective of performance and theater again, which is a lens that the series itself uses often enough (most exhaustively in EP7 and 8).
Bernkastel fundamentally plays a role that is important to the central working of the whole series, if she wasn't present people would not pursue the truth any further. Exactly by showing things that are more gruesome, more cruel and more heartless do people carry on.
Looking back, if it hadn't been for her playing the role of the "evil witch" people would have given up at several points. If she hadn't torn Ange apart Battler would have not regained his fighting spirit; if she hadn't put that curse on Ange she might have just eternally stayed in the illusion of fighting at the side her brother; if she hadn't played the most vile and despicable cards in EP5 through Erika, Battler might have given up on the game; EP6 posed a happy end, yet she pushed further towards the truth by forcing people to look at an explanation that lacked any heart sparking the wish to create one with a heart; in EP8 people were ready to just give into illusion but she pushed further, maybe too far, but she forced people to confront their doubts.

[Renall]

That would be nice if it were true, but I'm not sure there's enough in Chiru to really prove it. I think that was the idea in the first four episodes; the way she screws with Ange's head to motivate her seems clearly motivated specifically to achieve an end and she's very reserved in her emotional state while doing so. I really only take issue with her in ep6 on, where she starts appearing to nurse a serious grudge that both clouds her judgment and makes her less a manipulative aspect of the meta-world and more of a bully who is tired of not getting her way and wants to show the people who have upset her just how much she can screw them over.

Saying "well if she hadn't done x, people wouldn't have kept going" isn't a particularly strong argument, even when it's true. If her point is "I have to play the villain to seek truth because nobody else is willing to do it, because I'm the only one with the experience and ethical flexibility to be willing to push it that far," then the story just doesn't give her enough face time and justification to spin her that way. She comes across in Chiru as an increasingly petty dick who wants to ruin people for upstaging her. I'm not sure I'd be fond of that portrayal regardless (even though I would find it better) because it implies that you have to abandon decorum and compassion to seek Truth. If Battler's counterpoint to that had been "No, you can seek Truth without going that far," then fine, that's a pretty good conflict to set up for the end. But it... wasn't that.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

I'm not sure I'd be fond of that portrayal regardless (even though I would find it better) because it implies that you have to abandon decorum and compassion to seek Truth. If Battler's counterpoint to that had been "No, you can seek Truth without going that far," then fine, that's a pretty good conflict to set up for the end. But it... wasn't that.

I agree with you partially on that one. EP8 Battler was not developed enough to actually solidify the stance I see him personifying there, which is "If only one would be hurt by truth it is to be hidden." Thus I see him and Bernkastel as the two sides of "If there is love things become visible, but there are also things that become incomprehensible if there is love", him being the former, her being the latter.

In a way, for 'Absolute Truth' you have to abandon decorum and compassion. As a prosecutor, don't you sometimes have to push emotion aside? Sure, Bernkastel is taking it to the other extreme of the Beato/Battler party, who are like "why take a painful truth if you can party with your murdered relatives in a dream world," but in a way she represents a notion that is not completely wrong.

I could also make an argument that, due to the representation of a moral discourse on truth in Japan being slightly different from the Euro-centric/American one that most of us follow, some part of the Japanese audience might be more inclined to follow the idea that hiding the truth to protect some is morally more positive than revealing it to appease some. Going by what Ryukishi has put out so far it's hard to say if he belongs to that portion or if he simply portrays Japan as existing within that paradigm.

In that sense I would have much preferred a third ending to EP8, making the one we got as the "magic ending" to be the "acceptance ending" and a true "magic ending" where Ange succumbs to the positive fantasy and goes equally (though less dangerously) insane as in the "trick ending".

One of the problems is that Umineko makes a clear distinction between "not telling the truth" and "lying", which is a concept that I found people who have been brought up in the West to have a larger problem with grasping.
Being part of a not fully accepted minority in Japan, I have to make that distinction on a daily basis and I am not rarely confronted by friends from Europe or America who have trouble understanding that.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

In a way, for 'Absolute Truth' you have to abandon decorum and compassion. As a prosecutor, don't you sometimes have to push emotion aside? Sure, Bernkastel is taking it to the other extreme of the Beato/Battler party, who are like "why take a painful truth if you can party with your murdered relatives in a dream world," but in a way she represents a notion that is not completely wrong.

Putting emotion aside temporarily to look at an issue clearly is different from believing that you essentially have to destroy your compassion and become a Witch of Truth. Compassion and emotion are important in dealing with (and accentuating) doubt, which is an important thing to address while seeking Truth. For example, Erika and Trick Ending Ange can't handle doubt, so they react definitively and self-destructively. There's a middle ground between "I will seek Truth at all costs" and "I'll just accept never knowing and move on," and arguably only in that middle ground do you even have a chance of reaching Truth anyway (as rationality is not a wholly logical endeavor).

I should also point out that putting aside my emotions to do my duty is literally what the system expects of me. The entire reason we have prosecutors who follow the law regardless of compassion for the defendant and attorneys who zealously fight for the freedom of clients they know to be guilty is precisely because we hope as a society that those conflicting aspects will work together to point toward what truly happened, by essentially balancing everything out. Emotion is still very important in a trial, but you're more likely to see the defense attorney wearing it on her sleeve than the prosecutor simply because it's more beneficial that way. The idea is more that none of these approaches are likely to work when undertaken by a single person, hence an adversarial system. The conflict, essentially, seeks Truth in a manner that would be far more difficult for an individual.

I could also make an argument that, due to the representation of a moral discourse on truth in Japan being slightly different from the Euro-centric/American one that most of us follow, some part of the Japanese audience might be more inclined to follow the idea that hiding the truth to protect some is morally more positive than revealing it to appease some. Going by what Ryukishi has put out so far it's hard to say if he belongs to that portion or if he simply portrays Japan as existing within that paradigm.

If the latter, he doesn't do anything to suggest he particularly disagrees with it. On the other hand, he is socially subversive in a few other points in the story... but also socially conservative at times. It's hard to get a read on whether he's commenting on the society of modern Japan through the lens of 1980s Japan or not. I'd suspect if he is, it's mostly accidental.

Whether hiding the truth would be seen as a moral outcome is another point entirely, but Japan seems to me to have been having a slow crisis of ethics in that respect. Which isn't to say the west isn't having its own ethical crisis... I think pretty much every first world society has entered a period of philosophical decline that each is trying to feel its way through and reconcile with social mores they've created for themselves without adequately questioning their reasons for existing. Umineko is in that sense a philosophical artifact of its time, a somewhat morally-confused work that is trying to emphasize a positive outlook it can't entirely define. I don't doubt Ryukishi has only the best of intentions, but I don't know if he knows quite where he was going with them.

In that sense I would have much preferred a third ending to EP8, making the one we got as the "magic ending" to be the "acceptance ending" and a true "magic ending" where Ange succumbs to the positive fantasy and goes equally (though less dangerously) insane as in the "trick ending".

You mean the Magic Ending?

One of the problems is that Umineko makes a clear distinction between "not telling the truth" and "lying", which is a concept that I found people who have been brought up in the West to have a larger problem with grasping.
Being part of a not fully accepted minority in Japan, I have to make that distinction on a daily basis and I am not rarely confronted by friends from Europe or America who have trouble understanding that.

It's not a problem if you have even the slightest degree of background in logic and philosophy. You're obviously correct that there is a difference. The problem is that not telling the truth can be as morally injurious as lying, so the distinction has to be made on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, I believe it's found wanting, but there are times where it probably is morally neutral. Choosing not to provide unnecessary but technically relevant information might be one example, provided the relevant information would not have any effect on the outcome of decisions made by the person they weren't told to. "You shouldn't investigate all means available to you to get information and impressions on events that happened" w/r/t Eva's diary is just stupid though, even if it's not motivated by a desire to present a believable lie for any sort of manipulative end.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

There's a middle ground between "I will seek Truth at all costs" and "I'll just accept never knowing and move on," and arguably only in that middle ground do you even have a chance of reaching Truth anyway (as rationality is not a wholly logical endeavor).

I more or less agree with you on that, though I have this urge to challenge the choice of words. Technically we could make a distinction here between Truth and truth, just as for example Jaques Lacan made a disctinction between Real and Reality; Truth being the constructed combination of actual events and emotions/motives, while truth is simply just the matter of fact events.
If you say that the Truth is that murder is more than just one person harming another with no regard of their survival, while truth is just that, then I agree with you.
Though this can be seen in Erika's approach during EP5. As everything she revealed about Natsuhi was factual truth, yet she wasn't able to reach the Truth because she lacked an understanding of some emotional aspects. For example "Natsuhi would not kill Krauss" (like manga EP3's "Eva would not kill Hideyoshi") can not be logically proven, yet it seems obvious from the emotional information we can gather by observing her during the series.

The entire reason we have prosecutors who follow the law regardless of compassion for the defendant and attorneys who zealously fight for the freedom of clients they know to be guilty is precisely because we hope as a society that those conflicting aspects will work together to point toward what truly happened, by essentially balancing everything out.

While the system is generally comparable in most parts of the Western world, I still want to point out that the system I was raised in (Germany) is slightly different from for example the American system. I always have the feeling that talking about truth and moral right and wrong in the context of "law" is very heavily displaced for each participant depending on their background.

It's hard to get a read on whether he's commenting on the society of modern Japan through the lens of 1980s Japan or not. I'd suspect if he is, it's mostly accidental.

Though even an "accidental" comment is important. In writing and thinking, something like an "accident" is a concept that I shy away from. Sub- or unconscious placement is something I would prefer to call it. He lives in the society he is writing in his work, so everything he portrays is painted by his very own perception.
But I fully agree with you that he didn't reach a complete decision on what he thinks of the dilemma himself, his stance seems equally unstable as some of his characters, which is not unimportant in it's own right.

You mean the Magic Ending?

In a way that is how you could paint it actually, yes. Though I would say that she was moving on enough to see a development for her. She knows the Truth, yet she was able to build a life of her own that does not only rely on her connection to the past (I see her passing on Maria's morals as something that is at least painted positive in the text and I can agree with). She would have probably just continued her life without searching for her brother any further...though yes, her emotional reaction reveals, that giving it up broke her to a certain degree, if not just as much as continuing her search.

In that sense you could even say that, at least from our perspective, none of the two endings is entirely positive.

"You shouldn't investigate all means available to you to get information and impressions on events that happened" w/r/t Eva's diary is just stupid though, even if it's not motivated by a desire to present a believable lie for any sort of manipulative end.

That line of thought is though exactly part of the different outlook on the distinction that I was talking about. I see where you are coming from and I think I would be inclined to follow that line of thought in several situations myself, but I can't help to see the destructive side of this as well.
If society was reasonable enough to comprehend any information for what it is and bot biased by their personal perception and mindset then this would work perfectly. Yet the approach of "using every means necessary as long as they provide otherwise unattainable information with connection to an event" leads to an outcome of "sacrificing some for the sake of a greater goal" just as much as hiding certain aspects. Isn't the question just as much if the positive effect outweighs the negative impact?

For example, I think it is important to challenge the half-truths spread about Japan's war history and create an idea of Truth, because some people keep getting hurt while others unjustly praise themselves.
Yet in a case like Umineko's murder case it becomes much more muddled. Yes, the surviving relatives - Ange, Nanjo's son...well Kuamasawa's son seems fairly unconcerned, but possible relatives of Gohda if there are any - feel confused and hurt about not knowing the truth, yet having the truth revealed might give them emotional piece, yet create problems for them on other levels, possibly even incriminating them. Ange could be the daughter of murderers, the Nanjo name would loose all credibility in the field of medicine, all relatives received at least access to large amounts of money, which incriminates them. Yes, revealing the truth is the lawful thing to do, but is it the moral thing to do?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I more or less agree with you on that, though I have this urge to challenge the choice of words. Technically we could make a distinction here between Truth and truth, just as for example Jaques Lacan made a disctinction between Real and Reality; Truth being the constructed combination of actual events and emotions/motives, while truth is simply just the matter of fact events.

I'm not sure I'd quite use those definitions (I'd argue capital-T Truth is more the ideal of understanding striven for in any process of thought, essentially the informational component of wisdom), but at that point it'd just be quibbling over semantic underpinnings, as the notions are similar. The point is indeed to distinguish Truth-as-moral-good and truth-as-factual-recollection.

Although in the case of Erika in ep5, she was merely advancing a collection of truths in an attempt to prove "a truth" in aggregate. This was not "the truth" as it wasn't even true and she has to have known it (although this is a side debate I'd love to have; did Erika genuinely believe in Natsuhi's guilt due to misdirection from Bern, or was she intentionally framing her with full knowledge of her innocence?). The reason it wasn't "the truth" is that she wasn't seeking Truth, which has attached to it a moral component that by necessity asks that we direct our analysis of truths as responsibly as we can.

While the system is generally comparable in most parts of the Western world, I still want to point out that the system I was raised in (Germany) is slightly different from for example the American system. I always have the feeling that talking about truth and moral right and wrong in the context of "law" is very heavily displaced for each participant depending on their background.

I don't deny that law is a game, in a certain sense, and its construction is not perfect. However, the intent behind the design of an adversarial system is essentially to harness our natural tendency to want to "win" and mitigate the damage this may cause by pitting potential biases against one another so that they can be exposed in the eyes of a (presumably) neutral finder of fact, who will then use that information wisely to obtain a verdict. Overzealous prosecution remains a serious issue, but I'd argue this arises from a morally flawed approach to prosecution generally; in other words, the aforementioned desire to "win" rather than seek Truth, essentially Erika's attitude.

What I believe is important about the law is that it provides a good example of a theoretical ideal for Truth-seeking, which is a collaborative effort of contrasting viewpoints and desires. Again, doubt is important, as is empathy; having a voice of dissent, even acting as devil's advocate, is extremely helpful. Conscience can be that for an individual, but there's no real substitute for someone else's input. Another reason it's morally harmful to shut people out of your Truth-seeking just because you don't have faith in what they will do. Yeah, they might hurt you, but that adversity could prove necessary.

In that sense, I can see the appeal of viewing Bern as a literal Satanic figure (in the Book of Job sense). If her actions are to play the part of the heartless anti-fantasy advocate because she knows everyone else is too invested in the outcome to turn against it, then certainly she does fill that role and turn the system into a sort of adversarial one. But once again, I don't believe that's how she was actually written. A shame, really, because it makes a degree of sense for her, but her textual actions seem to stand against it.

Though even an "accidental" comment is important. In writing and thinking, something like an "accident" is a concept that I shy away from. Sub- or unconscious placement is something I would prefer to call it. He lives in the society he is writing in his work, so everything he portrays is painted by his very own perception.
But I fully agree with you that he didn't reach a complete decision on what he thinks of the dilemma himself, his stance seems equally unstable as some of his characters, which is not unimportant in it's own right.

True, but unconscious criticism becomes less interesting the more inconsistent it becomes. And Ryukishi is not entirely consistent in his attitudes toward certain things like gender roles and the public's desire to understand events.

In that sense you could even say that, at least from our perspective, none of the two endings is entirely positive.

I again chalk this up to the incompleteness of Twilight. I have an inkling that he didn't quite intend to portray the endings as he did, but perhaps he was in a hurry. There's a lot more that could have been done there, and I think that certain necessary ep4 parallels were cut out or just not implemented in order to set up just what Ange intended to do with and in her own life. There is something more to be said about the portrayal of Maria's worldview than Alliance said (although it said plenty, I think), but it didn't get the rehabilitation it needed after the first three-quarters of Twilight did its level best to run it through the mud (possibly unintentionally).

If society was reasonable enough to comprehend any information for what it is and bot biased by their personal perception and mindset then this would work perfectly. Yet the approach of "using every means necessary as long as they provide otherwise unattainable information with connection to an event" leads to an outcome of "sacrificing some for the sake of a greater goal" just as much as hiding certain aspects. Isn't the question just as much if the positive effect outweighs the negative impact?
...
Yet in a case like Umineko's murder case it becomes much more muddled. Yes, the surviving relatives - Ange, Nanjo's son...well Kuamasawa's son seems fairly unconcerned, but possible relatives of Gohda if there are any - feel confused and hurt about not knowing the truth, yet having the truth revealed might give them emotional piece, yet create problems for them on other levels, possibly even incriminating them. Ange could be the daughter of murderers, the Nanjo name would loose all credibility in the field of medicine, all relatives received at least access to large amounts of money, which incriminates them. Yes, revealing the truth is the lawful thing to do, but is it the moral thing to do?

Maybe? It's certainly ethical to lie to Nazis about whether you're harboring Jews or resistance members. But that's not because lying is moral sometimes; it's because lying is sometimes not as bad as the alternative.

Where I take issue with things is this speculation on possible future harm as outweighing definite future benefit, and suggesting that there is nothing that could be done by these people in light of the truth to counteract the (almost wholly theoretical) malicious actions of others. It's a fundamentally cynical calculus; "I believe that more harm than good will result, so I'd prefer not to take the chance."

At any rate, I don't believe there is a moral duty impressed upon individuals to prevent all potential harm, and that people and societies bear the burden of their behavior, even if they are operating on the basis of established factual truths. What I mean by this is that if it were true that Ange's parents were murderers, it wouldn't make her classmates' taunts any more justified (only factually true instead of speculative). The Truth (with a capital-T) is that you don't impart upon the son the sins of the father, and Ange is as much a victim of her parents' actions in a scenario where they were guilty as anybody else is, because she was betrayed by the people closest to her and abandoned for something like greed or wrath. She deserves compassion as well. It is both morally right to incriminate those who have done wrong and to provide support and compassion to those who will be victimized by the revelation of that fact. Hiding the truth ultimately does neither.

And if society is going to negatively affect Dr. Masayuki Nanjo for the fact that his father was a corrupt and incompetent physician when he himself is not, then perhaps it's society that's wrong and not the dissemination of the truth of Rokkenjima? We shouldn't reward an ethically delinquent society for its lapse of morality by allowing it to conform to its own expectations. Turning away from Truth because a broken society would act unethically toward people who have done nothing wrong is not right. There is no moral necessity inherent in hiding this particular set of truths, as there might be in doing so while acting in opposition to such a society.

For example, I think it is important to challenge the half-truths spread about Japan's war history and create an idea of Truth, because some people keep getting hurt while others unjustly praise themselves.

I would argue that most of those are not "half-truths" but outright malicious denial. I think that Japan's ethical crisis could be summarized as a refusal to confront things that are problematic under the notion that they aren't problematic as long as they don't cause social turmoil (and thus, by this same faulty logic, anyone who is causing social turmoil is the actual problem rather than the thing they are taking issue with). It's a pernicious, dangerous lapse of judgment that affects issues of social and criminal justice, health and public safety, education, minority rights, and historical revisionism.

By contrast, the west loves to raise issues to the forefront but lacks the compassion to view them as serious enough to condemn as morally harmful and the conviction to accept that a moral harm cannot be permitted to continue and that something probably needs to be done about it. We love to complain about inequality or injustice, yet we do nothing to prevent it from happening again and again while telling ourselves that if it were really such a big deal, someone would fix it (but of course, it's never us who has to fix it). In either case it leads to inaction, but that inaction is harmful for different reasons.

The way I see it, the attitude toward the truth in Umineko sort of has both problems at its core. It's hypocritical with respect to that Japanese attitude because other people refuse to let the truth lie or continue to engage in mean-spirited speculation (Ange would probably have been bullied over it regardless), yet we're supposed to believe that this is morally equivalent to more responsible and ethical methods that are never shown to even be an option. It's ignorant with respect to the western problem because Battler's kindness is not actually directed toward a specific moral goal other than alleviating suffering in general ignorance of root causes (relieving suffering without addressing the causes of suffering is an empty platitude).

The forces at work in Twilight are essentially trying to shape Ange's ethical development, but they don't make very good arguments as to how she ought to structure her life. One can argue too that they carry an unrealistically cynical view of the public's attitude and an unrealistically rosy view of the appeal of Beatrice's catbox. I'd argue both are harmful, but the public's attitude can be corrected (and is, albeit in a stupid way); Beatrice's actions cannot. If we had more information to call Bern a sort of "dark conscience" and Battler's argument were more coherent and less patronizing, I do think we could say that this scenario would play out in Ange's mind. But that didn't really happen. Ultimately, Ange is just left to cobble together a moral framework without the reader getting a terribly good and full sense of what she's decided to do. We know she's chosen to live quietly and to be charitable to others, but it's not clear if she came to this decision merely because it "feels right" or if her experience reliving and considering the tragedies of her childhood convinced her that she's acting in a way that is the most rational. We probably could have come to know more about her (and about Tohya) and how they have both been shaped and shaped themselves by this tragedy and subsequent searching for information on it, but we don't.

[haguruma]

Woopidoo, my browser crashed and deleted my post, so short version this time and no Erika-comment for now...

Originally Posted by Renall

then perhaps it's society that's wrong and not the dissemination of the truth of Rokkenjima?

I think that Japan's ethical crisis could be summarized as a refusal to confront things that are problematic under the notion that they aren't problematic as long as they don't cause social turmoil

By contrast, the west loves to raise issues to the forefront but lacks the compassion to view them as serious enough to condemn as morally harmful and the conviction to accept that a moral harm cannot be permitted to continue and that something probably needs to be done about it.

I admire your outlook on truth-seeking and society and I hope this is not a too personal question, but am I completely off in assuming that you are a straight, white male?
I agree completely that these are the paradigms in which the two systems operate and that they are problematic, but truth doesn't exist in a vacuum and my doubt is simply, if it is right to endanger the well-being of a few without their consent to change society into something that seems better to us.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I agree completely that these are the paradigms in which the two systems operate and that they are problematic, but truth doesn't exist in a vacuum and my doubt is simply, if it is right to endanger the well-being of a few without their consent to change society into something that seems better to us.

Is it right to make patronizing decisions to "protect" the well-being of a few without any actual proof that what you're doing will preserve or improve their well-being or that not acting in such a manner will definitely lead to trouble for them? And even if I were to accept the argument, is it right to refuse to change a broken society because a few people - or even a great many people, honestly, if you're changing society to the detriment of the majority due to an injustice - might be negatively impacted by it? I don't see doing something that somebody might not like as ethically detrimental as long as the action being undertaken is morally right. As for making sure it is... that's why it helps to have consultation and dissent, something you're not going to have if you insist on resolving the entire problem yourself.

If your argument is we shouldn't take an action that may potentially have negative consequences, then your system of ethics is assuredly going to be paralyzed by indecision at one point or another. My point is merely that if one must make a choice between uncertain outcomes, it is probably better to behave on a level that is personally ethical than to assume that your unethical actions will lead to a better overall outcome. This is especially true if you are trying to come to a decision entirely on your own (as one presumably would do when one is the sole trustee of information and the one who must choose whether to disseminate it).

But seriously, let's talk more about Erika.