2013-05-14, 07:11 | Link #32281 | |
Eaten by goats
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
But, why would that mean that Yasu never existed in Rokkenjima Prime/the stories and that our objective is to see through that? That doesn't seem to follow. Even aside from the stories themselves, in interviews, Ryukishi's spoken about Yasu in terms which make it clear that she actually does (er, fictionally) exist, so unless basically everything he's said about the series is a big lie, I don't think Yasu's existence can be doubted. Ryukishi is trying to give us mysteries which can be solved without being easy to copy-paste. Also, we've never been told who the culprit was, except in the game board stories where at least some of the time it has to be Yasu/Shkanon/Beatrice. Though I do think that Ryukishi may have intended to fool some people into thinking that Yasu/etc was the Rokkenjima Prime culprit. |
|
2013-05-14, 08:28 | Link #32282 | ||||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
The main thing is how trivial it would be for somebody to slip away if they knew. It can't be that hard to get to a safe distance and wait until you see Yasu passing between buildings or something. Decide if it's worth the risk of ambushing her, or run the hell away. Or just, you know, find another room and try to call the police on the sly. It appears the phones actually do work, and if they don't, you know Genji's in on things so go check the switchboard and see if he's disabled it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Battler doesn't know Ange. She has spent twice as much of her life after his "death" in a world he cannot possibly know. He is not only not a good person to judge what is best for her, he's basically got absolutely zero moral authority to determine what is best for her. He's worse than Eva in that respect. If an 18-year-old Ange tells him she can handle it, who the hell is he to say otherwise? Where is his trust for his sister of the future? Where is his love for her? If he has no other motivation, then he is just a dick. If his desire to trust her is mitigated by a deep and selfish personal desire that telling her would destroy, his action is at least something that could merit sympathy, and his patronizing attitude can be excused as a show he's putting on to protect himself. In other words, it allows him to hurt Ange without having as his primary purpose the desire to hurt Ange, the latter of which would make him at least an asshole and at best evil. Thematically, if Battler is no different from Eva, then Ange is literally alone in every way exactly as she says she is and everyone is talking down to her and distrustful of her. Why should she make the "right" decision in the face of that? Not one person trusts her. Not one person has bothered to ask her what will make her happy, they've just told her that she needs to be happy. That's a horrible moral to present: "People know what's best for you, so it's probably better to just accept that, no matter how reasonably upset you are." The agents of her pain have no moral right to tell her she shouldn't feel that pain. If, on the other hand, those same individuals derive personal benefit from the existence of the catbox, at least then we can say that they are conflicted between a genuine desire to give Ange what she wants and the realization that they can't both do that and have what they want. It makes them jerks, but at least it doesn't make them monsters. Quote:
Not that I have to really protest it, because I can counter it: Krauss was willing to shame and sacrifice himself alone for the sake of his wife and daughter. It's in ep5. He was also willing to fight back against someone trying to use him to coerce others; that's in ep4. That he shows these tendencies at all convinces me that he would never go along with such a thing, because he would rather die in noble defiance than allow others to fall into the same trap he'd fallen into. And he would probably rather admit to concealing Kinzo's death by himself and go to prison for it than let Natsuhi or anyone else take the rap for it. You can argue Yasu was presenting him an out to both problems, but I believe he is a more moral person than that. I believe all the adults are more moral than that... and smarter, so I don't for a second think they wouldn't be coming up with ways to get back at Yasu and stop her. In fact, an argument for greed only makes them more likely to do so. Look at what Kyrie does in ep7. All of the motivations and attitudes you are ascribing to these people suggest instead that they would rather die and let everyone else around them die in order to preserve things that will be inevitably destroyed when they all die. It goes beyond self-defeating and stupid to just being outright insane. Is it your position that the characters in Umineko are insane?
__________________
|
||||||||
2013-05-14, 10:26 | Link #32283 | ||||||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If people were actually moral enough to call the police then, they should have been moral enough for a far longer time. Quote:
Quote:
And does trust automatically equal love? Does not trusting equal the absence of love? If your 18 year old brother was to open a drawer in which you know your parents keep items that could potentially harm if not destroy his love for them, would you just let it open to him because he tells you he knows what he is doing? I see you being motivated by the idea that individualism and personal freedom is a very high good and in your cultural and social environment that might be right and might have been highlighted in your upbringing, but don't forget that this is not the only and not necessarily the correct way to view the world. Quote:
On the other hand consider this, does it help your family if your public image is in shambles, you are in debts beyond any way of ever paying off and some of you might even go to jail? Yes, at least most Americans I know would answer with a clear "I'd rather live in the gutter with my loved ones than betray them", but isn't that utter egoism as well? You are just highlighting different aspects of reality to be more real, more worthwhile. I'm not saying these are Asian sensibilities, that is THE big misunderstanding when talking about "Japan" in any way. There are no "Asian sensibilities", but there are diachronic paradigms in Japanese social-cultural reality that highlight several aspects of family and love different than in most of the US-American-based Western society of the postwar era. One book I find quite insightful (even if obviously biased in certain areas) is Matthews Hamabata's Crested Kimono from 1990. Quote:
Quote:
If people on the island were actually as noble as you want them to be, why did only Eva survive? |
||||||||
2013-05-14, 11:34 | Link #32285 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
I think the biggest problem with the interpretation of chapter 8 here is that renall has clear view on his theories but bases the assumptions of ep 8 on his own worldview and on what you personally think is "logical action" in certain situation.
As ep 8 is clearly written to showcase emotion, and any claims and arguments about relationship between characters from your viewpoint in certain context turn out to be your assumptions. Even things like "battler barely knows ange" is logically true, as meta aside they haven't probably been in touch for long periods of times because conflicts between him and rudolf, but basing any opinion solely on your judgement on what is right and logical is not generally accepted fact. You can clearly see that battler has love for ange in ep 8 even though this is the pinnacle of "being logically wrong". Quote:
Can you prove that entire umineko is not your dream? Can you prove that you even exist outside illusion? Can you prove that devil's don't exist? This kind method of arguing, while being "logically" true as evidence is missing, is just simply put retarded and childish. Basically any argument stating "you cannot prove otherwise" while achieving certain evidence of argument is impossible falls under category of childish squabbling. Can you for example prove that battler wasn't vampire, because as there was no evidence of this not being true, you can't right? But all these asspulls aside, I am honestly interested what kind of theory you have that could explain everyone else on the island sacrificing their lives for eva and battler. |
|
2013-05-14, 13:03 | Link #32286 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
As to your actual factual points. Battler does display love for Ange. He also does take actions which hurt her. You can't argue one is true and deny the other is true. It's necessary to make sense of these things, and most people cannot provide a coherent argument that makes Battler anything other than a condescending paternalist, exactly the sort of person Ange is rebelling against. That might be true, but it makes Battler one of the villains and justifies Ange, so Battler shouldn't be correct in the end. If Battler is, nevertheless, correct, then the answer provided by the work is that Ange should not have had her own thoughts and desires about what she thought would make her life meaningful and should have conformed to what people told her was best for herself. I am 99.9% sure that is not the intended message, and if it is, it rightfully deserves to be condemned for being unconscionable and emotionally manipulative. Battler having a personal incentive beyond a mere paternalistic belief that he knows what will make his adult sister whose life he has had no influence over for most of the time she has been alive (can we please not forget this?) happy at least humanizes his opposition to her behavior and contextualizes why he believes she is being hurt by her pursuit (because it's his fault, he's the one that's hurting her, and he doesn't want to do that). Quote:
These arguments will never end when people dismiss my foundation for argument as equally valid to any other position (it isn't) and refuse to engage on the basis of their own (because they generally don't have one, or haven't given theirs sufficient thought). We will just go back and forth on the same issues for the remainder of all time... in no small part because the last time we tried to get at the basis for the discussion it was considered to be off-topic. So I guess we're just doomed here. If that's the overall message of the story, I rather think it proves my point that lack of truth is ultimately the real poison here.
__________________
|
||
2013-05-14, 14:00 | Link #32287 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brazil
|
Hey guys I have been reading this threat since… I don’t even remember, and maybe it's finally time to start posting with you guys if you don’t mind. English it's not my native language but I'll try my best here.
If the entire point of Umineko is to learn how to let go, them is the work with most buildup leading to an unbelievable letdown I have ever read. Why would an author write a story dressed as a mystery just to say in the end – sorry guys you will not have an answer, but you see, the entire point was to learn how to let go, so… just let go….. And don’t argue that Umineko its Anges story, she doesn't even appear until almost half of the way. The most fuckup thing in Umineko for me it’s the idea that in every episode someone help Shakanon for some reason, I mean, seriously? Everyone it’s a potential assassin because LOLGOLD? Them its better let go because the murderer in the end is everyone! I mean why not? If they are willing to face they kinsfolk crying, begging for mercy and shot them in the face for gold or whatever why we need Shanon? why would the others be considered less murderess than Shanon? The scene can happen even without that entire Shakanon thing, someone just need to find the gold and COMMENCE BATTLE ROYA… so what's the point? (We even see that in Lion timeline) I seriously hope that I'm wrong in that last bit, because to me, I would ruin umineko, I can't accept that Rykushi would make such game table even if someone is pulling the strings, but that puppet master would be the only explanation that make a little sense, and I don’t mean Shakanon BS, I mean like politicians or military folks that track down that ton of gold to get all back and even that can't make the LOLGOLDKILLFAMILY thing much less shitty. |
2013-05-14, 14:19 | Link #32288 | ||
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
But now that's out of the way let's move to something else. As you stated above with your 99.9% probability, the way characters act towards eachother and the overall writing style, seeing battler as an evil person causing deliberately suffering for ange is very interesting opinion. We can argue endlessly whether this is because of Ryu's lack of writing abilities or something, but it is very clear this is NOT intended, and your take on battler and the moral of his actions is in clear collision with the story and writing itself. If you have, as you implied, spent analyzing the text, then you can easily notice how the entire scenario is meant to be taken as lovable and sentimental lesson about goodness of humanity. So basically, everything from Ryu's script, actual writing, the showcasing of certain emotion, the entire style of the chapter, everything disagrees with your claims. Your interpretation is strongly read between the lines while every factual evidence and sequence is against your interpretation. I value that your worldview is "properly examined" what ever that might mean, but it is in direct conflict with the story. However, you are right about the cause of suffering: thirst for truth hurts ange, and in this way we can see hiding the truth as one cause of suffering. But as shown in episode 8 and even in the "trick" ending, the actual truth can be seen as even more painful than the tensions of the search: trick ending literally displays ange as becoming a killer, loveless machine, that doesn't care about love and every lesson entire umineko tried to teach us thus disagreeing straightforwardly with battlers view of the truth being trivial detail that should be left uncovered. Once ange agrees with battler, she moves to fight with him against her old allies. This is a fact. Even ange agrees with battler. And lastly let me play one more recklessly low card: entire sequence of battler hiding the truth in meta never happened, as it is part of meta. The search for truth and hatred for people not revealing the truth could be seen as following: only reason battler could be seen as evil person hiding the truth is because he is not able to reach ange because amnesia, and this way entire "hiding the truth" could be seen as a metaphor for ange's search without answers. Only person in prime that doesn't tell ange the truth is eva, and as discussed multiple times before, is deliberately being a dickhead because toxic relationship/covering for herself. |
||
2013-05-14, 14:53 | Link #32289 | ||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
For example, Upton Sinclair intended that The Jungle be a treatise extolling the virtues of socialism, and that it be a persuasive political document convincing people to agree with his position on socialist policies. But the actual parts of the novel advocating socialism are so hackneyed, poorly-executed, and clearly pushing a message that it's nearly impossible to take them seriously. By contrast, the stark, well-researched, graphic, horrific narrative preceding it about the disgusting and inhuman conditions of the American meat-packing industry were immensely persuasive in reforming that industry. So the novel was persuasive and politically impactful, just not in the manner that was intended. A work can state a claim and fail to do so convincingly, or accidentally state a valid claim its author didn't realize he was making, or state an immoral claim (like "slavery is justified") and have its narrative appear to support this as true. That's just how persuasive writing works. The question becomes whether the message derived from the work is actually persuasive. Likewise, we could say that it's fairly clear what message Ryukishi intended to send through Twilight of the Golden Witch. That does not by any means mean that (1) it was the message that actually came through or was delivered in execution; and (2) that the message is in and of itself worthy of praise merely because its protagonist makes it. Battler isn't right simply because he's Battler. Bern isn't wrong simply because she's Bern. A character is right or wrong if his or her argument is meritorious and correct or is not. And Battler is clearly at least partially in the wrong in his treatment of his sister. The question is whether he has a valid, human reason for it, or if he just thinks he knows better than her (which would make him an asshole). The former case is the one that salvages the artistic merit of the work, as the latter case creates a moral that you should listen to people who know what you need in spite of what you personally believe that you need. That's a poisonous and dangerous message to send. On the other hand, "You should listen to other people and understand the source of their own pain and why they can't do what you want because they have things that they want that interfere with it, so you gotta ask yourself what you're willing to give on to preserve their happiness and yours" is a fairly serviceable message that makes a good deal of sense of Ange's ultimate conclusion while also making the people who manipulated her forgivable for what they've done wrong. It gives her agency as a character. But it requires that we believe certain things about the characters providing her with their viewpoints; that is, that they are not purely intellectually motivated by a desire to manipulate her emotions for a certain end, but have unstated but implied motivations that hamstring their ability to simply provide Ange with the truth that she desires. Quote:
The Trick ending is a strawman, a suggestion that Ange is such a broken person that she could become a stereotypical psychopath merely because she cannot wholly let go of her desire to know things. It's a false dichotomy created by someone seemingly incapable of making a rational contrast or explaining an emotional and intellectual contrast without resorting to extremes. Worse, it comes after a considerable body of work suggesting mostly the opposite, and providing a portrait of an author who has a considerably different worldview than the one he seemingly concludes on. It's possible this is merely because ep8 was rather seriously rushed. If the manga is any indication, an enormous amount of detail was lost (or is being added in, your choice). Of course Ange ultimately agrees with Battler. She has no choice but to do so given the manipulations of her opinion by the author. I happen to believe that, given certain interpretations that have been presented to me, this is an extreme deviation of character for both her and her brother and that it is an intensely bitter and negative moral. I can reconcile this and save the work, but doing so requires that I find a motive for Battler that makes him not an evil patronizing dick. I can find such a motive, so I prefer it to merely dismissing the work as fundamentally ethically flawed... which I concede it might simply be. Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2013-05-14, 14:53 | Link #32290 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Quote:
And on the related note, even if I find some unlogical things in yasu, am I the only one that actually buys people being bribeable by gold? At least the sisters need money and openly hate eachother, so I see now problem why people couldn't be bribed to be accomplices. I mean, isn't it actually semi-plausible explanation on some of the characters? |
|
2013-05-14, 15:11 | Link #32291 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Now, the bank card is considerably more persuasive. The problem is, how can they be sure the thing isn't just a piece of useless plastic (or paper or whatever it is in 1986)? There are no ATMs on the island and you can't call the bank on the weekend while stranded on an island by a typhoon. And any step Yasu takes to verify its authenticity exposes her to being turned over to the authorities by her would-be accomplices. If Yasu offered me a gold bar I'd laugh in her face and demand cash. Upfront. The gold is essentially worthless. It's not even legally her property (nor was it Kinzo's). The only value the gold has is in a sort of ep5 or ep7-TP-pre-shootings scenario where everyone basically does an Advanced Game Theory calculus and realizes that the gold is only useful if everyone keeps their damn mouths shut about it and doesn't cause a scene.
__________________
|
|
2013-05-14, 15:25 | Link #32292 |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Well... as I'm getting more certain that even arc 1 was written after prime and that there are hints concerning it scattered in the early arcs...
I've been thinking, in considering with arc 7's tea party. Eva didn't believe Beatrice about the switch being "off" on the bomb. Ever since arc 1 they say everyone left alive is "devoured in hell" (or something, I can't remember the wording right now) because Battler didn't believe. Could this be more or less what happened in prime? Battler didn't believe Beatrice about the switch and the island blew up. Not going to speculate about the details of how that would've happened exactly tho, but it's likely the timing wasn't so close to midnight as it was in arc 7TP for eva. |
2013-05-14, 15:35 | Link #32293 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
It somehow seems we have lately been the only people arguing here but oh well. Let's go.
Because I simply can't resist the subject of subjectivity, let's just say I completely disagree with you and that itself is a proof of subjective worldview. Opinions not being equal is a another way of saying "subjective views that have become generally acceptable by society are objective": I had recently similar argument about "objectively good art", but because we both seem to understand that this is an argument that goes in endless circle without becoming actually anything because opinions we can just bury this topic for now and move on. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If your morals see battler as the bad guy for harming ange, then, nice morals, I guess. I agree maybe things could have been resolved more peacefully and battler and ange could have discussed the matter of the truth that was important to ange, but in reality discussions like the one we are having are almost absolutely the indicator of persons worldview and what they consider to be morally right. |
||||
2013-05-14, 15:48 | Link #32294 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
An example of this would be to look at a scene and say "this character gets into a fight with his friend here." From a narrative standpoint, this might make sense. On the other hand, if the character is a strict pacifist, then he wouldn't get into a fight with his friend. A better approach to this scenario is to set the scene for the confrontation and then see where the preexisting characterization of both characters actually takes the scene. For example, perhaps instead of a fight they argue, but the pacifist refuses to rise to provocations and the friend mocks him and leaves. In a way, you still had a "fight," but it fits how the characters would actually behave rather than merely making them act the way the narrative seems to be dragging them. I believe the characterization of a large number of characters in ep8 is at odds with their prior portrayal, in a fairly weird fashion. I also see them occasionally engaging in pointless or unhelpful actions despite acting as if their behavior is entirely reasonable. This behavior must be reconciled. I think there are ways to do it, but nobody really wants to investigate them because they don't see the problem that is clearly there. In the alternative, ep8 was simply rushed, and the characterization suffered as a result and will be fixed for the manga, which has made several such changes already. It's possible the "proper" version of ep8 is something we simply haven't seen yet.
__________________
|
||
2013-05-14, 16:22 | Link #32295 | ||
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, to sum up, you disagree with characterization and how people act towards ange, because it is not logical, but at the same time accept it was intentionally written so and serves purpose for the story? Basically, few posts back, you claimed that mixing opinions into arguments is childish way of arguing, but so far the entire concept of you fighting against things that CLEARLY are meant to happen in a certain way with no indications otherwise (except your own moral judgement), doesn't it basically mean that the entire disagreeing with the ep 8 is, indeed, your opinion, and your argument "because my morality says otherwise". I am willing to give you that people like kinzo act unlogically because story demands so, but then again, it is part of the story and for example I fail to see any malice or unlogicality in battlers or anges actions during episode 8. I can also give you that hiding the truth is bad, but if the harm done by revealing the truth is worse, every action taken in episode 8 is justified. The fact that entire scriptwriting backs me up is, from my point of view, quite clear example of you fighting against something because you do not agree with the characters and their morals. How is this not an opinion? |
||
2013-05-14, 16:37 | Link #32296 |
Reading your tale. :)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Just out of sight, eating popcorn. >:D
|
A problem I(and apparently Renall) have with the 'intended' view of Battler/family is precisely while it is drilled over and over that basically 'feelings should be understood', that is side stepped for the person who the lesson is supposed to be imparted to(Ange) while(and this part is actually something that hasn't been rehashed 50 times) being used amongst the teachers themselves, specifically with Eva. Battler and co. allude to Ange and Eva's possible suffering, but with Ange it really doesn't go beyond: "It was hard and you feel bad, but you' shouldn't feel bad." With Eva it's more: "It was hard because of x and you feel bad because you did x, but you shouldn't feel that way because of x that we totally get."
They acknowledge Eva's pain because of actual factors they know(Ange's distrust; lack of support; pain of familial loss) that are moreso emotional(instead of 'wow, you had NO cash on-hand?; those police interrogations sure were tough, sis; damn noisy reporters; SO MANY MEANIES'). They listen to her chastise herself, do some damn reading between the lines and respond with that she shouldn't because it's understood that she did do her best with a bad hand. They know that Eva acted terribly, feels terribly, and couldn't do better. They assume Ange's(and we have 'wow, you had NO friends on call?; those accusations of the fam sure were tough, lil sis; damn noisy schoolgirls; SO MANY MEANIES'). They talk at her about what she should do, but not to her. They don't think of why Ange goes along with moreso hurtful thoughts from her viewpoint, like how Kinzo is 'some shut-in jackass who beats everyone because foreigner fetish' instead of 'a overtly affectionate jokester who can be easily misunderstood, especially by someone very young'. Or that a bunch of random and bored fuckers went wild misunderstanding a (possible) horrible accident/series of fuckups(not including murders); she goes with something sinister happened(planned or not) and a bunch of random fuckers are dolling out ideas that reallly hurt her(lol Kyrie's shoot 'em up roundup best westerns by an eastern yakuzas always da top killas) instead of ideas that don't hurt as much(Eva's mean old skanky ass peaced all of em I knew that bitch was no good and never was probably getting real wet from all that money and dead bodies). They assumed she felt like shit because everyone she loved is dead, and took in shitty ideas from people she doesn't really know well because she didn't know better. Maybe it's because Ange yelled her pain out in a sometimes 6, sometimes 18 body which at best, would have at times kept her at the lowest age wise or equal to the not-the absolute lowest age wise and Eva cried in the body of a woman in her late 40s at the earliest? -Basically, they don't have to leap with Eva, but some skipping together is done at least. They could try to leap with Ange, but they rush on ahead and expect some catching up on her part.
__________________
|
2013-05-14, 16:52 | Link #32297 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Also maybe it's none of our business how Ange reacts. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-05-14, 16:57 | Link #32298 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Quote:
The thing is, I understand the characters could have treated ange more understandably. However I must disagree that the fact that they didn't is itself "evil" or "bad scriptwriting", as every character honestly tried to do what was the best thing to do towards ange. The part where my and renalls view don't match is that renall believes this detail makes for example battler bad person and that the episode should be "fixed", as I personally don't see any kind of breaks in logic: even if the characters never fully understood ange and her pain it is not an error that should be fixed in any way |
|
2013-05-14, 17:07 | Link #32299 | ||
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
-You still accept it was a part of scriptwriting and Ryu's message to us -You think opinions bad -Your argument being "it doesn't match with my morality" I think the central dilemma in here is that you have very strong sense of what the "correct" moral base is. Therefore you decide not to accept characterization that goes against that and keep attacking it, thinking there is something broken with the story. Or have I misunderstood something? |
||
2013-05-14, 17:23 | Link #32300 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
|
|