[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's a total copout answer, and not at all implied within the text or Ryukishi's interviews.

I fail to see how that would be a copout and how it is not implied by both his interviews and the story itself.
Yasu has three, if not four people s/he cares about. In his narratives he splits his/her one "soul" into three (or four depending if you see Battler's and Maria's Beatrice as two people) and let's them act independently. It's implied and said again and again that what we read is never the actual truth but interpretations of possible truth(s).
How is it a copout if there are fictional beings in a fictional story? Is Kinzô in the first four Episodes a copout as well?

I would like to actually argue against you, it's not that I'm wriggling around certain points on purpose. It's just that I fail to see why exactly this answer is a copout.

The thing is that he consistently seems to treat her inner conflict as if it were an EXTERNAL conflict between different people, instead of Yasu being merely indecisive.

But it IS an external conflict in her stories. Shannon first helps and then fights against Beatrice, Kanon submits to her, Beatrice kills them to be revived, Kanon becomes Beatrice's tool, Beatrice makes Battler her slave by telling him the truth...those are all her feelings externalised in form of characters.
Wouldn't it be quite hilarious if there was actually Yasu in disguise breaking into Jessica's room and arguing with him/herself wether or not to kill Jessica? Of course not without crazily throwing paper weights around and in the end ramming one of those into her own chest because she has defeated himself...

Why does everything have to be as it was portrayed in the stories to be "not a copout" or "fair" for certain people?

That would work if Yasu wasn't the culprit, but Ryukishi seems to be saying she is in his interviews, even in Rokkenjima Prime.

He does? The only thing he actually says is, that Yasu set things in motion that lead to the tragedy of Rokkenjima. And that she might have acted in certain ways because she could imagine it in her stories (like in EP2). Where did he ever imply that she was the one who commited the murders in reality?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Too bad not all people agree that it's MPD in Umineko, right?!

Well, the question at hand is whether Ryukishi, the author, agrees that's what it is. I'm not 100% convinced that's how he sees it, but he clearly doesn't see it as something vastly different based on the language he uses. If so, he would probably have described it as something that couldn't be so confused with Fakey Fictional MPD.

Our opinions as to what the text appears to support are different (possibly, anyway) from what the author says he meant. You can draw your own conclusions from there, but it doesn't change the conclusion of the author... whatever that happens to be. I'm not sure myself right now though. I'd like to ask him pointedly, but I don't think he'd answer a question of that nature directly.

[AuraTwilight]

I fail to see how that would be a copout and how it is not implied by both his interviews and the story itself.

I can't prove a negative. You have to demonstrate that it IS implied.

Yasu has three, if not four people s/he cares about. In his narratives he splits his/her one "soul" into three (or four depending if you see Battler's and Maria's Beatrice as two people) and let's them act independently. It's implied and said again and again that what we read is never the actual truth but interpretations of possible truth(s).
How is it a copout if there are fictional beings in a fictional story? Is Kinzô in the first four Episodes a copout as well?

You really need to stop strawmanning me and demonstrating that you actually understand what I'm saying.

There is nothing wrong with fictional beings. That's not even relevant. My problem is with Yasu being apparently defined by Ryukishi not as an emotionally conflicted person but as three persons in one body who all have an unshakable resolve to their personal goals, creating an internal interpersonal struggle, and that's what his language in his most recent interview means.

Either this is what he thinks, or he is such a poor public speaker that he's still just as idiotic.

I would like to actually argue against you, it's not that I'm wriggling around certain points on purpose. It's just that I fail to see why exactly this answer is a copout.

Well, same here, but I'm not seeing you demonstrating reading comprehension skills. I mention that I talked to Ryukishi about MPD while he was still writing Higurashi and you accuse me of saying there's MPD in Higurashi. I describe dissatisfaction with the idea of portraying Yasu as being a Multiple and you accuse me of hating fictional constructs like the living Kinzo.

But it IS an external conflict in her stories. Shannon first helps and then fights against Beatrice, Kanon submits to her, Beatrice kills them to be revived, Kanon becomes Beatrice's tool, Beatrice makes Battler her slave by telling him the truth...those are all her feelings externalised in form of characters.
Wouldn't it be quite hilarious if there was actually Yasu in disguise breaking into Jessica's room and arguing with him/herself wether or not to kill Jessica? Of course not without crazily throwing paper weights around and in the end ramming one of those into her own chest because she has defeated himself...

You're not understanding a damn word I'm saying. There's a difference between an internal conflict and a conflict of personalities; it changes Yasu's characterization completely and utterly and radically alters the ramifications of the story Ryukishi is presenting to us. The very THEMES of the story change.

Why does everything have to be as it was portrayed in the stories to be "not a copout" or "fair" for certain people?

That's not what I said at all, but while we're on the mark I should say that generally the intent of the words should match what the words are saying. Quoting a sonnet dedicated to a lover shouldn't translate to "Red is an awesome color."

He does? The only thing he actually says is, that Yasu set things in motion that lead to the tragedy of Rokkenjima. And that she might have acted in certain ways because she could imagine it in her stories (like in EP2). Where did he ever imply that she was the one who commited the murders in reality?

He says multiple times that the culprit of the story is something he revealed, and something you can't understand unless you've been in love. It's also something he wanted to present in a way so you couldn't 'copypaste' it. The only person in the entire story this applies to is Yasu, because with every other character you can say "The culprit is X" without having to explain who they are.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, the question at hand is whether Ryukishi, the author, agrees that's what it is. I'm not 100% convinced that's how he sees it, but he clearly doesn't see it as something vastly different based on the language he uses. If so, he would probably have described it as something that couldn't be so confused with Fakey Fictional MPD.

Isn't it possible that he used that language because he wants it to be confused with Fakey Fictional MPD? Since the subject is Yasu's character and motives in R-Prime, there's no way to distinguish the MPD theory from the metaphor theory using physical evidence, so in the end it comes down to a qualitative debate based on themes and story integrity and trying to see into the authors' minds. That seems like exactly the sort of thinking that Ryuukishi wanted to encourage throughout the story.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Isn't it possible that he used that language because he wants it to be confused with Fakey Fictional MPD? Since the subject is Yasu's character and motives in R-Prime, there's no way to distinguish the MPD theory from the metaphor theory using physical evidence, so in the end in comes down to a qualitative debate based on themes and story integrity and trying to see into the authors' minds. That seems like exactly the sort of thinking that Ryuukishi wanted to encourage throughout the story.

I guess I've lost faith in him sufficient to make me imagine such a thing is actually plausible. You're correct, there'd be no way to distinguish the two from what he actually said.

[AuraTwilight]

It's also not falsifiable. "No, no, no, the other didn't MEAN to create a giant clusterfuck of a plothole in his magnum opus! It's...like....ironic, dude. It's a metaphor for our....inability to cope with...like....the truth of society, you know, man?"

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I would explain this with the fact that none of the events we see in the Episodes excluding some parts of 7 are reality, but fiction. It's how Yasu wanted the individual parts of her to be written. It's more like she split herself into several pieces and they all act out different parts of her emotions.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. Sure, everything before EP7 could be considered "fictional". I can't think of any non-fictional part of EP7 outside of Claire's story, but it's Claire's story that showed that Yasu/Beatrice and Shannon viewed each other, and Kanon, as different people.

Originally Posted by haguruma

I think it's no accident that we don't get to meet Kanon in EP7 apart from some very few scenes. And that we don't get to know anything about their fate in the Tea party.

"their fate" being that of Kanon and Shannon? Dead, obviously, when Kyrie shot Beatrice.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Isn't it possible that he used that language because he wants it to be confused with Fakey Fictional MPD? Since the subject is Yasu's character and motives in R-Prime, there's no way to distinguish the MPD theory from the metaphor theory using physical evidence, so in the end it comes down to a qualitative debate based on themes and story integrity and trying to see into the authors' minds. That seems like exactly the sort of thinking that Ryuukishi wanted to encourage throughout the story.

I definitely prefer the metaphor theory better.

Random new topic: Is it just me or does no one consider the possibility that it actually was Maria herself who locked/unlocked the chapel in the EP2 chapel closed room puzzle?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Random new topic: Is it just me or does no one consider the possibility that it actually was Maria herself who locked/unlocked the chapel in the EP2 chapel closed room puzzle?

That's because, IIRC, Battler considered this, and it was shot down right after he suggested it.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's also not falsifiable. "No, no, no, the other didn't MEAN to create a giant clusterfuck of a plothole in his magnum opus! It's...like....ironic, dude. It's a metaphor for our....inability to cope with...like....the truth of society, you know, man?"

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if more than half the supposedly brilliant things in any given work of fiction are entirely accidental. There's a reason a lot of authors don't go into excessive detail explaining all the things they actually meant, or if they do, why they wait to do it after people have had time to come up with all the things they "meant" to do for them to take credit for retroactively.

Exactly which parts of Umineko were planned from the start is another matter entirely. Cynically, part of me thinks it's like:

Spoiler:

[AuraTwilight]

Dammit Renall I want to marry you.

On that note, Sherry is 100% convinced Toya and Ikuko totally got it on.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Judoh

That's because, IIRC, Battler considered this, and it was shot down right after he suggested it.

Nope. I'm pretty sure that Battler never mentioned Maria actually using the key herself. But I did just reread this important statement, though:

Starting when Maria's key was received, and until the instant Rosa unsealed it the next day, it passed through no one's hands!!

I had been thinking that it indicated no one else's hands. So yeah, rereading this makes Maria's use of the key much less feasible. Honestly, I'm kinda disappointed because I liked the idea of Maria's involvement here, especially with the "Happy Halloween for Maria" scribble.

Still, the wording is suspicious. Why not instead of saying "it passed through no one's hands" say "it never left the envelope"?

[Thanatos of Crows]

e says multiple times that the culprit of the story is something he revealed, and something you can't understand unless you've been in love.

Is this from an interview or an interpretation of "without love it can't be seen"?
In the case of the latter I see it more like this:
If you have no love for the author, you'll doubt anything he throws at you and dismiss the parts you don't like as red herrings, traps, tricks or whatever.
If you have no love for the characters you ignore their personalities, relationships and such to make theories that please you the most.
Distrusting the author (like the popular saying Red is all lies) and ignoring character traits and such only eliminates all evidence and locks you in a game of your own.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I can't prove a negative. You have to demonstrate that it IS implied.

Well in that case we reached a dead end, because what I used as implications before you called utter conjecture.

There is nothing wrong with fictional beings. That's not even relevant. My problem is with Yasu being apparently defined by Ryukishi not as an emotionally conflicted person but as three persons in one body who all have an unshakable resolve to their personal goals, creating an internal interpersonal struggle, and that's what his language in his most recent interview means.

What is wrong with fictionally externalising an emotional conflict in form of different characters? The interpersonal struggle can be seen as an externalisation of the several ideas of a possible solution that Yasu has. Were it something like "unshakable resolve" the problem would not be present from the very beginning.
Yes, at the point of EP2 Shannon absolutely wanted to be with George, Kanon absolutely wanted to protect Jessica and Beatrice absolutely wanted them apart, but that just combines to Yasu not being sure into which direction s/he should go.

竜　ベアトと紗音が恋愛観について延々と議論を戦わせている。それが心の葛藤を描写したものだという風に読ん でもらえるかなと、私は思っているんですけどね。

It really depends on how you interpret the idea of a fully functional personality. He repeated again and again, especially in EP6, that Shannon, Kanon and even Beatrice do not possess a complete soul and that the decision through the trial and duel of love are necessary to restore them back to one complete human being.
Of course these individual wishes are presented as full grown characters in the stories written in the narrative, but that does not mean that they have to be fully grown personalities within her. Even Yasu's past in EP7 is presented to us through that worldview. Will says it himself, he could have forced Shannon to tell the truth in that moment in the church, but it would have made a stale victory. It's more like part of the illusion is kept intact to keep us guessing.

Yes, Yasu created those characters to keep her company, but that doesn't make them personalities in a medical sense either. Would you say a child has MPD when she has an invisible friend? Or that a person living alone and talking to him/herself has MPD? It's just something you do because you're lonely.
And Yasu gave those individual feelings she had to the individual characters in her narrative...but I just don't see why that immediatly implies those characters being full fledged personalities.

Or maybe I'm the real life Yasu for being able to understand many of those actions...
It's really not that difficult to create different personas for different actions and each of those getting different goals along the way...even without them doing anything you don't want.

You're not understanding a damn word I'm saying. There's a difference between an internal conflict and a conflict of personalities; it changes Yasu's characterization completely and utterly and radically alters the ramifications of the story Ryukishi is presenting to us. The very THEMES of the story change.

And this is where I lose you? Where does it change the themes?
The theme is that through love you are able to conquer even the most horrible reality, but at the same time hiding away reality can hurt people just as much. Another theme is that any notion of truth is subjective, because truth only exists in the very moment something happens and is distorted immediatly afterwards by emotions, memories, intentions and so on.
What exactly changes about Yasu's characterization if it is all just an inner conflict? Because I don't see it as a conflict of personalities...

He says multiple times that the culprit of the story is something he revealed, and something you can't understand unless you've been in love. It's also something he wanted to present in a way so you couldn't 'copypaste' it. The only person in the entire story this applies to is Yasu, because with every other character you can say "The culprit is X" without having to explain who they are.

「犯人はヤス」, yes. But between 犯人 and 人殺し there is a huge difference I think, at least within Ryûkishi's works.

Spoiler for Higurashi:

The culprit of Higurashi was not actually a murderer. She killed exactly one person, everyone else was either killed by people she controlled or people who got under her influence. Still she is the culprit, because she is the origin of the incident.

Yasu is the 犯人 because she set everything in motion, created the plan, provided the weapons...but she does not actually have to have killed anybody.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Random new topic: Is it just me or does no one consider the possibility that it actually was Maria herself who locked/unlocked the chapel in the EP2 chapel closed room puzzle?

I did actually, my reasoning is in Maria's thread if I remember correctly.

Here's a copy paste

This morning, Rosa definitely took an envelope out of Maria's handbag, and thereby obtained the genuine key to the chapel

Starting when Maria's key was received, and until the instant Rosa unsealed it the next day, it passed through no one's hands!!

Battlers defense after this involved auto locks, people hiding inside the chapel and small bombs. But he never considered that Maria was even there to open or close the door. So either the door was never locked in the first place, in which case we suspect Rosa (taking the red truth literally, it never passed trough any hands to open or close it) or the door was locked and Maria must have opened and/or closed it. (taking the red truth figuratively, as in the door was locked and the key never left her possession)

Another thing I found interesting was that Beatrice purposely holds back in ep 2. She says the first red statement right there in the episode but doesn't say the second one all the way till ep4. She could have shot down Battler and basically force him to surrender right there if she wanted to but if Battler was clever enough it would have resulted in him deducing the 2 possible scenarios.

Now with EP7 Will's denaument points that the most likely option was that it was never locked , which in my scenario incriminates Rosa. Now my problem lies with the mentioning of the "Golden Truth" in that particular scene when as far as I remember this wasnt used on the other ones. What made this particular case worthy of it and not the others?

e- Sorry AT I forgot to answer you. I miss typed it, its not BPE but rather BPD. Borderline Personality Disorder. It works to explain Yasu but it really doesnt explain convenient red dodging. Which is what is at issue with us that have problems with the whole Yasu thing.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Hagu who wrote the forgery detection thing? Was it Keiya or was it RK07? Maybe a collaboration of both? Also I remember you mentioning Keiya's book and also remember reading some of his old interviews. What where the key words he kept alluding to whilst reading the novels? The words that kept being repeated.

If you have read his book, could you tell us some of his theories?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Hagu who wrote the forgery detection thing? Was it Keiya or was it RK07? Maybe a collaboration of both

I assume from what they said it was KEIYA who wrote the forgery author test, Ryûkishi agreed with the test and said it was useful. It also seems it has been around some time, at least in theory and they have been exchanging theories based on that format from the very beginning.

Also I remember you mentioning Keiya's book and also remember reading some of his old interviews. What where the key words he kept alluding to whilst reading the novels? The words that kept being repeated.

From the interviews I read with them I think he's refering to certain passages, the topic of creating different social personae to protect yourself, images of mirroring...
I have to search for direct paragraphs to show what points they were both alluding to.

If you have read his book, could you tell us some of his theories?

I actually thought about translating some passages. I'm still in the middle of working through the book again and making some notes about his theories. It's not only basic theories, it's really a decostruction on a more metaphorical level. For example he theorizes about how the ring and the brooch are silver and gold respectively and how the gold and silver keys mirror that...connects that with what the Eisernen Jungfrauen stood for and with their Key of the Heavens.
I think I will post some of his ideas along the way or on my blog...

If you have a definite question about his theory concerning a specific event, ask away...

[Cao Ni Ma]

Nice! I'll be waiting for those and your answers to the forgery test.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Dammit Renall I want to marry you.

I don't think your boyfriend would approve of that.

On that note, Sherry is 100% convinced Toya and Ikuko totally got it on.

Well... why not? They have a pretty close working relationship and he was kind of a lech in his previous incarnation.

Unless she's actually Beatrice or Maria or something, then that would be a pretty good reason why not. Or his Stake of Purgatory can't gouge anymore, if you follow me.

[Cao Ni Ma]

I'd be pretty funny if the whole incestuous overtones of the later episodes are related to Battler subconsciously believing that he's boning one of his cousins/aunts.

[Jan-Poo]

Well there is this part that totally seems to suggest that Ikuko and Tohya are an item.

「……失礼ながら、……お二人はご結婚を？」
Ange: "Pardon me, are the two of you married?"

「結婚はしておりませんが、ずいぶん長く一緒におります。」
Ikuko: "We didn't marry, but we've been together for a very long time."

「そうですね、気付けば、ずいぶん長く一緒にいましたね……。」
Tohya: "That's right, if you think about it we've really been together for a very long time."

兄はそう言いながら微笑む。
So my brother said while smiling.

Anyway Renall has a point, I wonder how much crippled he is, his body might be even less "fit to love" than Yasu's, if you know what I mean...

I wonder if Tohya really is Ikuko's lover rather than... her house pet. I mean... she literally found him on a street and brought him home without even knowing where he came from.