[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[RandomAvatarFan]

What about Krauss culprit theory? Some people can be pretty poor losers. I'd bet he figured that if he was going to lose the house and everything else, he might as well lose it on his own terms.

"What are you doing?"
"It doesn't matter. Either way we lose everything. I'm sorry I couldn't provide for my family."
"Krauss! We can work through this!"

*Boom*

Everyone was already there. Eva was the first one to realize what the clock did, and left well before midnight. George wanted to stay with Shannon, and Eva resigned herself to the fact that her son was grown up and could make her own decisions. Hideyoshi was trying to calm Krauss down. That's how Eva survived and no one else in her family did.

[GreyZone]

Well the explanation could easily be that Eva just mistrusted 'Beatrice' as we saw in EP7 and turned the switch on the "explode" side, but this time her siblings were not around to stop her... actually this seems the most plausible to explain the explosion as an "accident", because no one really had the intention to kill.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Because you would claim that there is an objectively measurable way to reach the status of joy. Emotional reactions are highly subjective and (at least so far) not reproducable for anybody in the same way.
The fact alone that somebody could disprove your claim simply by enjoying a book of riddles without the answers given makes it subjective.

The first two are terms that are applied to certain mechanics in storytelling. You can make objective OBSERVATIONS about them and then draw your conclusion from there. The deus ex machina in itself is not a flawed concept in itself, it is the absence of foreshadowing towards such a plotelement that is frowned upon. Basically all that can be objectively criticized is the lack of narrative cohesion which then again has to be evaluated on the larger scale of the narrative as a whole. You can't dissect a proper critique and make the individual parts work on their own...they might as well not make sense out of context.
The claim "the absence of characterization in Hideyoshi is a flaw" in itself doesn't hold up, it has to be backed up by reasons why it is a considerable flaw in contrast to other things.

You are arguing by taking advantage of a literal interpretation of my examples.
Okay, let me word it differently then.

a) "There is a general lack of clear explanations about various mysteries relevant to the understanding of the story and certain important plot elements" <- Umineko's problem
b) "there is an element that was mentioned in the story for no apparent reason that remained completely unused and unaddressed" <- checkov's gun

Explain the difference in objectivity about these two different cases.

a) "a good story should always provide explanations to mysteries that are relevant to its understanding and to important plot elements, unless it is the author's objective to make it impossible to understand" <- umineko's problem
b) "a good story should never mention anything irrelevant. If something is mentioned it must be used" <- checkov's gun

Again explain the difference in objectivity.

The difference between the first and the second sets of sentence is that in the first there is only a statement, in the second there is an attached value to that statement: "it's good or it's wrong".

And for what concerns rules of narratives such as the ones I mentioned earlier, despite your attempt at eluding the issue, there is always an assumption of what is wrong and right, else they wouldn't be rules.

You may or may not agree with them, but that's not the point. The point is that criticism always makes assumption on what is wrong and what is right. Denying this equal to deny criticism.
Criticism is not the simple statement of the facts, it never was and never will. If you state a fact without judging it wrong or right, you're simply not making a critique.

Originally Posted by haguruma

And again I have to press on the impression that you misunderstood me. Truth is not manipulated in my personal view, truth does not even exist without our observation because truth is merely our reconstruction of what is real or what we perceived as real. You cannot hide truth, you can merely hide what is real by creating a story that will maybe be accepted as truth. This then forms the reality of those people, but that reality does not have to be real.

I see that as a mere sophism. the truth is simply a statement that correctly describes reality, you cannot separate the two things. Philosohy taken to the extreme just ends up going against common sense by redefining laymen terms in something different that do not reflect the original intended meaning.

That being said the "truth" is supposed to exist whether someone actually said it or not, simply for the fact that if a reality exist, then a correct statement about reality must exist, even if no one ever said it or thought. Naturally I'm not saying that it factually exist. Truth is a concept. But saying that a particular truth doesn't exist unless observed is like saying that a particular number doesn't exist until someone actually reaches that number by counting real objects. It makes no sense, it's a concept, a concept doesn't exist by virtue of what actually happens, a concept exists in relation to its own definition.

"Hiding the truth" assumes that one person knows the correct statement that describes what really happened, but decides to not disclose it or alter it by making an incorrect statement.

Originally Posted by haguruma

Please read again what I actually wrote. I never said that personal taste should be avoided. People should simply think harder about where they start getting into the area of pure personal taste and leave objective reasoning behind.
You and Renall trying to convince people that there is an inherent, objective flaw within Umineko because you don't find your own moral worldview in it, is personal taste but it's hard to see if you even consider that. Unless of course you really do believe in something like a preexisting truth and it's indisputable moral value...which would make any attempt to discuss this point futile and we can only agree to disagree.

I never said that Umineko has an inherent objective flaw, from the very beginning I've been stating that there's no such thing as objective flaws.
But you are trying to make a distinction between criticism based on objective flaws and criticism based on tastes which I reject for the very reason objective flaws do not exist. because the very concept of flaw is inherently subjective.
My qualms against you is that by making this distinction you are in your turn critiquing my critiques on the assumption that they are wrong critics. Which I would accept if it wasn't for the fact you are basing this judgement by assuming objectivity where there is none.

[UsagiTenpura]

Using circumlocutions doesn't make any critics more objective tho.
Opinions aren't objective. Sorry to say so, but you guys sounds pretty ridiculous trying to claim otherwise.
Using circumlocutions is a very deceptive way to get around that.

[AuraTwilight]

Hagurama is the only one claiming otherwise, Usagi.

[Wanderer]

Yeah, but to argue about it to such an extent is still silly no matter which side you're on. Usagi summed up the whole problem in just a couple lines. "Circumlocutions". Learned a new word today.

[AuraTwilight]

It was a valid discourse, since Hagurama kept trying to shut down other people's arguments as if THEY had committed logical fallacies, but he was in fact in the wrong on that point.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Opinions aren't objective. Sorry to say so, but you guys sounds pretty ridiculous trying to claim otherwise.

Counterpoint: Subjective viewpoints aren't all equally valid.

It is my subjective opinion as to whether I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That's more or less the prevailing opinion because it is the one most supported by the evidence. However, nothing stops me from believing the figure is off by several hundred million years, or believing the Earth is only 5000 years old per some interpretation of religious texts, or believing the Earth sprang into existence yesterday and all my memories were created at the same time. All of these opinions are subjective, but they hold a varying degree of credibility based upon how well they line up with objective facts.

To return to Umineko, it is a subjective opinion to say "I like Umineko because it's a good mystery" or "I dislike Umineko because it's a bad romance." It would also be subjective opinion to say "I dislike Umineko because it's a poor introduction to the Lesser Key of Solomon." However, the first two would be more valid opinions because Umineko was clearly trying to at least touch on the mystery and romance genres in some fashion, but never really claimed to be an accurate source of demonological knowledge. The lattermost opinion isn't strictly wrong on any objective level, but it isn't as credible because it attacks the work for something the work itself placed very little importance on thematically.

What's the point of my saying this? Some criticism is more valid than others even if it is purely subjective and merits attention and weight because it's founded on some form of reliable information and a tradition of research and thought. Just because classical art critics would be initially surprised or averse to modern art like cubism and new realism doesn't mean that classical art critique was bad, unfounded, or "just their opinion." It just means modern artists were intentionally exploring avenues of art that challenged traditional aesthetic sentiments. If you weren't making an effort to do that, the old critiques would still apply and still be valid.

That doesn't mean you can't even so hold the opinion that something is good or bad in spite of traditional academic thought to the contrary. And it doesn't mean breaking the rules can't be done well (even a deus ex machina is at least theoretically possible to do well in a story). It does, however, mean that there is significant merit to opinions which adhere closely to standard thought and any countervailing opinion needs to be equally well thought-out and supported.

Unless, of course, one's opinion is along the lines of "I love Plan Nine From Outer Space, even though it fails in every imaginable sense as a film." You really don't need to defend that.

[Asuka0NK]

My theory about Rokkenjima Prime is that the culprit is actually George. If George is the culprit everything will fit together perfectly. Yasu's guilt and suicide, Why the crimes wouldn't have happened if Battler didn't return, and the message bottles.
Shannon was prepared to accept George's proposal and live her life with him. But on October 4th Battler came back and old feelings resurfaced in her mind. She had still loved Battler as much as she did back then. George made his proposal to Shannon and she declined it because she was still in love with Battler. We know that George would kill for Shannon and so he did. George tried to show Shannon how much he loved her and that he would throw everything away just to be with her so he murdered his family to tell her that he will do anything for her and that he loved Shannon much more then Battler ever will. Eva that same night solved the epitaph and discovered the gold. The next day the murders continued leaving only Shannon, Battler, and Eva behind. The three tried to escape George and activated the bomb. The three split ways and Battler and Shannon left on the boat that she had prepared earlier. Eva escaped to Kuwadorian. Shannon felt so much guilt for everything she had done since she thinks everything is her fault for not being able to decide who she loved and the punishment was everyone dying. She commited suicide by jumping off the boat with the gold to weigh herself down and then the whole Ep 8 ending. Eva survived in Kuwadorian and George died in the explosion. I forgot to mention the message bottles were written by Shannon on the boat before she killed herself so that she could protect George because she is the one who spurred on his Yandere rage and made herself appear to be the culprit so she could take all the blame onto herself. This is my truth and I believe it fits with everything. Eva wouldn't show the truth to anyone because she didn't want anyone to know her son was a psychopath. She raised Ange to be stronger and not get close to people so that she wouldn't fall in love and end of like George and killing over it. She didn't want Ange to know the truth because Ange would of course take it as Eva being an accomplice. I'm sure that you all will find several holes in it and say it is wrong which it probably is but I believe it makes everything make sense.

[Drifloon]

George tried to prove that he loved her more then Battler did and he began murdering people.

THIS SURE DOES MAKE TOTAL SENSE

Also, why would Ange want to kill herself after finding that George is the culprit? She has no real connection to him.

[Asuka0NK]

Originally Posted by Drifloon

THIS SURE DOES MAKE TOTAL SENSE

Also, why would Ange want to kill herself after finding that George is the culprit? She has no real connection to him.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. It does however because remember in Ep 6 where he killed his mother. He would do anything for Shannon and he wanted to show her he was ready to throw everything away for her by murdering his family. He would've done anything to be with her and he was going to prove it to her. So pretty much this is one of the rare cases of male yandere.

Maybe because Ange realized that her whole life she had been accusing the wrong person. She had been accusing the person who maybe felt even more pain. Her son murdered the Ushiromiya's. Maybe it was Ange's anger at herself and suicide was a way to atone for what she made Eva go through after everything. She realized how much pain she put Eva through and she had to suffer the same pain.

[AuraTwilight]

Also, why would Ange want to kill herself after finding that George is the culprit? She has no real connection to him.

For the same reason why she would for almost any other truth: Her family was killed for a selfish, senseless, and stupid reason, and even if he doesn't actually attack anyone, BATTLER IS STILL THE CAUSE OF EVERYTHING.

Her big brother inadvertently caused the death of the whole family. What is not to freak out about?

[goldendust]

On the topic of Battler, I do find it interesting that Will knew the truth about everything seems to find Battler disagreeable/despicable(I think the translation for 憎らしい) since Battler is both the cause of the incident and could prevented it.

Although I do wonder if Battler solved the epitaph like he did EP5. Basically without any ill intent but it turned into a snowballed into a huge incident. At least it does fit in with Battler being the cause of the incident since he came back.

Eva having the ring implied that she solved but it is possible that Battler gave it away or Eva took it.

Originally Posted by Drifloon

Also, why would Ange want to kill herself after finding that George is the culprit? She has no real connection to him.

Either like AuraTwilight said or that Ange would kill herself if she was convinced that there was 0% of anyone coming back. Given that Ange never saw their bodies and nobody could prove 100% that they were dead that she believe that they could back.

[Wanderer]

George consistently demonstrates a firm grasp on reality, especially regarding his relationship with Shannon. Would George really believe that murdering his whole family would convince Shannon to love him? I'd sooner believe that he just "went postal" after being rejected before "he killed everyone to prove his love".

But even then, murdering Maria? Gohda? Kumasawa? Crap, Battler and Eva were the only two people that obstructed George from getting with Shannon, and somehow they're also the only ones who survived? It just doesn't add up.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

But even then, murdering Maria? Gohda? Kumasawa? Crap, Battler and Eva were the only two people that obstructed George from getting with Shannon, and somehow they're also the only ones who survived? It just doesn't add up.

Actually now that you say this.... you are right, i didn't realize this until now. The only explanation for G.c.t. to work would be, that he didn't want to get rid of them for a functional purpose (being able to marry shannon), but for a roundabout purpose (making his 'enemies of love' suffer), which would make it a stretch.


_____________________




But to put that aside... Has anyone an idea, how Tohya/Ikuko know the solution to the epitaph?
Did Tohya/Ikuko solve it together?
Did Battler solve the epithaph before/in Rokkenjima?
Was Battler just told the solution in Rokkenjima for some reason?
Was Ikuko=Yasu?

Anyone has better ideas?

[Asuka0NK]

On George culprit theory
Well George probably left those three alive for a reason
Battler: He wanted Battler to watch his loved ones taken away just like Battler did to him.
Shannon: He wanted her alive for an obvious reason
Eva: George was very close to her and either was waiting to kill her or she survived being attacked by him. Then there is also she may have stayed in the Golden Land till Shannon and Battler tried to escape through there.
Also Shannon rejecting him wasn't all of it. I believe George could take a rejection but he was rejected for Battler and we all know that George seems to have a inferiority complex about Battler. So not only did he lose his girlfriend but he also lost her to Battler. So I believe that George at this point would've turned to crime to prove he loved her. We never once see George get rejected for Battler so thus we have no idea how he would react if Shannon was taken.

On the epitaph
Well they may have not known the solution to the epitaph. We never once see the solution till Requiem and that is not written by Ikuko/Tohya from my knowledge. So maybe though Ikuko and Tohya did solve it. We do know that those two are very smart and may have solved it.
Also I think Ikuko=Yasu is one of the most ridiculous theories because it just doesn't add up. Ikuko has a backstory and Yasu just happened to wash-up on Niijima before Battler, purchase a house and a car and start a new life. That is ridiculous I think.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by goldendust

On the topic of Battler, I do find it interesting that Will knew the truth about everything seems to find Battler disagreeable/despicable(I think the translation for 憎らしい) since Battler is both the cause of the incident and could prevented it.

Eh, when did Will express something like that? Also, I'm certain we were told an "incident" of some strange sort would've happened whether Battler was there or not, and his presence just turned it from a small thing to a ... big thing.

Also, on Asuka0NK George theory ... not to come down too hard because the ending seemed to imply that you're fine to believe what you want, but I find the idea that Shannon penned two highly detailed (overflowing with cryptic clues and foreshadowing) yet differing accounts of her own fake guilt while on the boat ... rather improbable.

[Asuka0NK]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Also, on Asuka0NK George theory ... not to come down too hard because the ending seemed to imply that you're fine to believe what you want, but I find the idea that Shannon penned two highly detailed (overflowing with cryptic clues and foreshadowing) yet differing accounts of her own fake guilt while on the boat ... rather improbable.

Yes I do also, it's just I can't think of another point at which she could have written the message bottles. I guess she could have written them beforehand but then she would've had no reason to write them unless she knew George was gonna go yandere for her rejecting him and going with Battler.

[Jan-Poo]

On the George culprit theory there are two possibilities that I think can be used to explain why he would resort to mass murder, at least on Rokkenjima prime:

1) George on the very day he was going to promise eternal love to Shannon... learned that she was still in love with Battler. And this is quite plausible really. So now imagine George and Shannon got in an argument, now imagine that at the very time he learns that Shannon isn't even a girl, hilarity ensues, except nobody was laughing. George loses it and before he knows it, Shannon is dead. It's not premeditated nor anything, it was just the spur of the moment, jealousy and a long past of sexual repression did the trick. And once it was done, George went completely mad, he just killed the person he loved. And then you think he would quietly repent and confess his crime? No way! He start blaming everyone else, everyone is guilty! And anyway he doesn't care anymore, he probably just wants to die at that point, but why should he go alone? It's dangerous to go alone, George, take this gun!
2) George didn't kill Shannon, Shannon killed herself after learning that Battler didn't even remember his promise. This is also quite possible. In fact we know she killed herself in EP2 and EP4. At this point you can go back to point 1, George blames everyone for getting Shannon kill herself, he no longer wishes to live and kills everyone.

As to "why leaving Battler and Eva alone". There are two kind of people in this world: those who eat the strawberry first, and those who leave it for last after they ate the whole cake.
If you wanted to get someone to suffer the most in that situation, would you kill him first or last?

[Golden Bug-Hunter]

This calls for a conceptual battle.

Ushiromiya George vs Beatrice! FIGHT!

GLASSBREAK.WAV

Beatrice: What's this? What's this? Do you think you can defeat me, USHIROMIYA GEORRRRRGE??!!! You can't even measure up to my furniture! FUR-NI-TURE! Come, Seven sisters of Purgatory! Put this corpse back in his grave!

Lucifer: Lucifer of Pride, right here! Foolish Human! Ushiromiya George is one person! There's no way one man can take on over a dozen opponents!

George: Mom and I practice martial arts all the time. I'm a really formidable fighter! Also, there's that gigantic bomb under the chapel!

Lucifer: Arrrgh! Defeated again! First Kanon and now this guy! This is so humiliating!

Beatrice: Not bad, George, but that was just the warm-up!

Battler: Kick-boxing and the bomb in the church? Are you really going to let him get away with something that ridiculous?!

Beatrice: The incompetent person that suggested small bombs should just be silent!

Satan: Satan of Wrath, right here! You blockhead! The only confirmed survivor is the one you have the strongest motive to kill!

Leviathan: Leviathan of Envy, right here! Why did Satan get to cut in front? I'm jealous! Waaah! I wanna gouge the motive! The other most likely survivor is the one George had the second strongest motive to kill, Battler-kun!

George: It is possible that I was truly enraged at my own mother, and also at Battler, and chose to kill everyone around them first as the most brutal possible revenge!

Leviathan: Oh no!

Satan: Ack! You... Haven't.. dislodged me yet!

George: Grrrr! Don't make me angry! You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

Gaap: What's happening? George looks different. Like he's possessed or something... It's pretty hot!

Ronove: Oh my, could that be... ???

George: Raaaaagh!

Virgilia: Look out! George is Evolving into BERSERK GEORGE! He doesn't need a motive. He's insane with his anger! There's no whydunnit in his mystery anymore!

Erika: My favorite kind of culprit! Who cares about stupid things like a Whydunnit anyway?

Virgilia: This is bad. He'll be much harder to attack now.

Beatrice: Hey, teacher, don't underestimate your pupil so much. I still have 4 stakes to go, riiight? The strength of a madman isn't enough to overcome me, USHIROMIYA GEORGE!

Belphegor: Belphegor of Sloth, right here. Figuring out how to kill everyone would take a lot of work for a long time. Long enough for George to calm down and come to his senses.

Mammon: Mammon of Greed, right here! Explaining the deaths of Gohda, Nanjo, and old lady Kumasawa with George culprit theory is just getting greedy! Those three don't interact with Eva or Battler much at all. Berserk George doesn't have any motive to want to kill them!

Beelzebub: Beelzebub of gluttony, right here! It's too much! Killing harmless little Maria in a fit of rage is just too much! There's no way an adult like George would see helpless little Maria and still be angry enough at them to kill!

Asmodeus: Asmodeus of Lust, right here! George is mature enough to know that killing Shannon's friends is no way to win her love!

Willard Wright: Don't forget the heart! George isn't the kind of person to lose control like that. He might get angry, but in all the tales it's a calm, clinical and focussed anger.

Dlanor: Knox's 8th! It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented! Are there any clues that suggest George would become a berserker if he became enraged?

George: Are you questioning my commands? My focussed wrath creates a certain determination! With my martial arts skills, the guns, and the bomb on the island, I'm definitely clever enough to come up with a plan that- ACK!!

Satan: You blockheads! Don't forget about me! If George calms down, his motive is all mine to gouge as much as I want!

Leviathan: Waah! Why does Satan always get the cool lines?! I'm jealous! I'm still here too!

Beatrice: There you are, George. Trapped between the tips of my furniture! Maybe in a hundred years you'll find a way to challenge me again! AHAHAHA.WAV Get back in your coffin, you corpse of a victim! USHIROMIYA GEOOOORRRRRRGE!!! AHAHAHA.WAV