[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I more or less agree, except...

I agree that the emotional relevance of episode 4 Ange's 1998 story is pretty much the same no matter what it really is. However, its relationship to "reality" is very relevant to understanding Umineko's "real" world.

Well yes, but it poses a dilemma that leads to three resolutions out of which I find only two are actually acceptable to me and they are quite similar:

1. Ange's world of 1998 is real and we gather information about how the accident of Rokkenjima affected the world and the people directly associated to the events.
2. Ange's world of 1998 is fictional and we gather information that a witness of the events of 1986 has and how he assumed they would affect the world and the people directly assoicated with the events.
3. Ange's world of 1998 is entirely fictional and non of the information is anything beyond a mislead. Therefore the information gathered holds no worth as we don't have a counter-position..

[ClannadDango]

Wow this board is still busy. I just read Alan Moore's new League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which takes place in 1969 and is hinting of grim unimaginative future (looks like he is building Harry Potter to be the antichrist of fiction). Alan Moore is of course famous for his deconstruction of the superhero genere, it would appear that his new work is a decontrustion of fiction in the modern world. After reading it, it made me think of Ryukishi's Unimeko which appears to be a deconstruction of both mystery and fantasy genres, I think Ryukishi did an okay job. I really liked the first 7 episodes I have read so far and the first part of 8.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Well yes, but it poses a dilemma that leads to three resolutions out of which I find only two are actually acceptable to me and they are quite similar:

1. Ange's world of 1998 is real and we gather information about how the accident of Rokkenjima affected the world and the people directly associated to the events.
2. Ange's world of 1998 is fictional and we gather information that a witness of the events of 1986 has and how he assumed they would affect the world and the people directly assoicated with the events.
3. Ange's world of 1998 is entirely fictional and non of the information is anything beyond a mislead. Therefore the information gathered holds no worth as we don't have a counter-position..

Well, as you well know, I think it's fiction... for numerous reasons. As for the usefullness of the information we are presented, I think it's of similar value to that of magic scenes in the primary fictions.

And of course it makes sense if Ikuko=Yasu embellishing Beatrice's legend as she co-writes Touya's story about Ange.

[Cao Ni Ma]

I dislike the idea of everything about those scenes being fantasy. It leaves so very little that we could consider factual that we might as well discard everything and chalk it up to Battler being comatose in a hospital after "falling!" from a boat on the way to the family conference.

Im with Haguruma here, if Ange's scenes didn't provide us a perspective that could have helped us in unraveling the mystery then it holds very little importance. RK07 stated that you could solve the underlying mystery by picking one of any two perspectives, Beatrice's or Ange's.

[Renall]

Isn't it just as possible that Ange's 1998 as portrayed in ep4 and ep6 (at least, and maybe also ep8) is fictional, but it's all real information that Ange or others could have learned?

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Isn't it just as possible that Ange's 1998 as portrayed in ep4 and ep6 (at least, and maybe also ep8) is fictional, but it's all real information that Ange or others could have learned?

Im fine with that actually. I'd just rather know that Ange learned that information and based her decisions off of what she got than having her not do anything at all in the story. I still dont like the idea of her being some metaphor/idea for Battler though. It kinda ruins the character for me.

[AuraTwilight]

I just read Alan Moore's new League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which takes place in 1969 and is hinting of grim unimaginative future (looks like he is building Harry Potter to be the antichrist of fiction).

That's kind of weird, considering he considers JK Rowling to be one of the best writers of this generation.

After reading it, it made me think of Ryukishi's Unimeko which appears to be a deconstruction of both mystery and fantasy genres, I think Ryukishi did an okay job.

The thing is it wasn't Ryukishi's intent to deconstruct these genres. It was his attempt to tribute the mystery genre properly, but with fantasy dressings (maybe fantasy is being deconstructed, but not mystery).

[ClannadDango]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's kind of weird, considering he considers JK Rowling to be one of the best writers of this generation.



The thing is it wasn't Ryukishi's intent to deconstruct these genres. It was his attempt to tribute the mystery genre properly, but with fantasy dressings (maybe fantasy is being deconstructed, but not mystery).

Really Alan Moore respects JK Rowling? Based on the interviews I've read and heard I didn't see that. Also he did had Tom Riddle to that thing to Mina Murry I was thinking it was symbolic of modern fiction destroying classical fiction.

But in the way Ryukishi did deconstruct many elements of mystery and detective fiction espically after EP5, I see it as a tribute yet deconstruction at the same time.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Im fine with that actually. I'd just rather know that Ange learned that information and based her decisions off of what she got than having her not do anything at all in the story. I still dont like the idea of her being some metaphor/idea for Battler though. It kinda ruins the character for me.

Thing is, how would anyone other than Ange know whatever it is that Ange knows? And Ange is rarely a narrator. If the stories come mostly from Toya's perspective, there's a lot about Ange he just isn't going to know. I think it'd be fine to speculate on what information she might have had and try to guess what kind of decision she would have made, but really, it's always pretty much been Battler's story and we just never fully understood how much that was true.

[AuraTwilight]

Really Alan Moore respects JK Rowling? Based on the interviews I've read and heard I didn't see that. Also he did had Tom Riddle to that thing to Mina Murry I was thinking it was symbolic of modern fiction destroying classical fiction.

Was it literally the same Tom Riddle from Harry Potter? Because that name is in fact a literary reference to something else.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's kind of weird, considering he considers JK Rowling to be one of the best writers of this generation.

Alan Moore?
There must be an error.

http://www.biroco.com/other/moore.htm

Now this is what I expected to see from Alan Moore on JK Rowling.

But in the way Ryukishi did deconstruct many elements of mystery and detective fiction espically after EP5, I see it as a tribute yet deconstruction at the same time.

I side with AT on this one, I don't really think it was his intent to deconstruct the genre.

[AuraTwilight]

Oh, before I go, I’m sorry to report that I’m experiencing trouble in getting that article on J.K. Rowling (“J.K. Rowling: Burn her! Burn the Witch!”) together, like I promised. It’s the lack of any real hard evidence that’s difficult to get around. The only points that I’ve so far assembled that suggest we would be right to immolate the popular children’s-book author are as follows:



1. How knoweth Goody Rowling so much of the Devil’s Art, lest in truth she be a screeching hag that rideth in the night with her dark Master?



2. That Goody Rowling hath in spite caused a foul-mouthed homunculus to sprout atop the head of Terry Pratchett, wherefore he must always wear an hat, that it should be concealed.



3. That Goody Rowling hath an other teat concealed within her arme-pytte, whereat she giveth suck to her familiar, called Pyssewicket.



4. She sinketh not in water.



5. Burn her! Burn the Witch!



Like I say, it’s not much of an argument to base our efforts on if we are really serious about getting this chick set fire to. Also, when I told you that I definitely remembered seeing a copy of an earlier, more sexually provocative book in the series called Harry Potter and the Choronzon Working, it turns out this was only in a dream. Sorry.

If this isn't satire, I don't know what is.

[Wanderer]

I'm going to resummarize the argument that episode 4 1998 is fiction:

• It ends differently than the "true" ending of episode 8, so it's either meta or fiction.
• It seems strange that Ange would end up with Maria's diary.
• It seems strange that Ange would end up with Mammon.
• In episode 6 Ange questions whether her episode 4 experience was real (and also whether her current experience was real)
• And this quote:

From the episode 6 Tea Party

Ikuko: As thanks for the considerable time you have given to me, .........I will someday write your tale.
Ange: Am I going to appear in another of your forgeries? ...I hope you kill me in a slightly better way this time.
Ikuko: ......Do you...like miracles?
Ange: Are you talking about opportunism? ......I used to hate it, but recently I've become a big fan. Still, I'm picky about what I'll accept, and falling from a skyscraper and ending up unharmed isn't what I'd call a miracle.
Ikuko: Then, one day, perhaps, I will write you a tale that you consider a miracle......

The implication is pretty obvious, no?

Originally Posted by Renall

Isn't it just as possible that Ange's 1998 as portrayed in ep4 and ep6 (at least, and maybe also ep8) is fictional, but it's all real information that Ange or others could have learned?

Sure, that's just as possible. I understand that there are many, such as haguruma and Cao Ni Ma, who are open to believing it's fictional, but insist that even if it is fictional that the information presented still accurately represents that of the real world. It's a reasonable idea. However, we had numerous instances in Rokkenjima fiction where the narrator gave us false testimony, even false non-magical testimony. If we are to accept episode 4's 1998 to also be fiction, we can't just conveniently ignore this theme; considering what else the author "Hachijou Touya" has written, it does not bode well for a reliable depiction of reality.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

I dislike the idea of everything about those scenes being fantasy. It leaves so very little that we could consider factual that we might as well discard everything and chalk it up to Battler being comatose in a hospital after "falling!" from a boat on the way to the family conference.

Well, whether you like it or not, I think it is fiction. Although, I would not say everything in it is fantasy. For example, widely believed "facts" about the message bottles and their discovery I think are accurately presented.

I do empathize with how you feel this leaves us with very little to consider factual. However, I think that is exactly what RK07 intended. He does not provide any objective view of the real world ever, and that's the point (that the "truth" is shaped by perspective). The closest things we get are some first person viewpoints in episodes 7 and 8 (Yasu, Touya, Yukari- those times when the narrator is physically present, but their portrait never shows up). Note how Ange's 1998 story is not in first person.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Im with Haguruma here, if Ange's scenes didn't provide us a perspective that could have helped us in unraveling the mystery then it holds very little importance. RK07 stated that you could solve the underlying mystery by picking one of any two perspectives, Beatrice's or Ange's.

Just because it inaccurately represents reality doesn't mean it can't be used to help unravel the mystery. What does this story tell us about its writer, and what can that tell us about the real world? It's this same idea that RK07 taught us to apply to all the Rokkenjima fictions as well.

I would also like to know when and where RK07 made that statement to understand better exactly what he means by it, but based on just what you wrote here I would argue that I am picking Beatrice's perspective to solve the mystery.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

...I'd just rather know that Ange learned that information and based her decisions off of what she got than having her not do anything at all in the story. I still dont like the idea of her being some metaphor/idea for Battler though. It kinda ruins the character for me.

But, it's kind of what we get out of everyone. We got some drastically different Anges in episodes 4, 6, and 8- especially the different Anges from the two choices in 8. And how many different Kinzos do we get, for example? How many different Rosas? Evas? Rudolfs? They are all just projections of Yasu/Touya/whoever, but there is still truth in them, and I still like all these characters.

Originally Posted by ClannadDango

But in the way Ryukishi did deconstruct many elements of mystery and detective fiction espically after EP5, I see it as a tribute yet deconstruction at the same time.

I agree. Especially in episode 5.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The thing is it wasn't Ryukishi's intent to deconstruct these genres. It was his attempt to tribute the mystery genre properly, but with fantasy dressings (maybe fantasy is being deconstructed, but not mystery).

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I side with AT on this one, I don't really think it was his intent to deconstruct the genre.

You guys kidding? If Umineko isn't a deconstruction of mystery I don't know what is.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Sure, that's just as possible. I understand that there are many, such as haguruma and Cao Ni Ma, who are open to believing it's fictional, but insist that even if it is fictional that the information presented still accurately represents that of the real world. It's a reasonable idea. However, we had numerous instances in Rokkenjima fiction where the narrator gave us false testimony, even false non-magical testimony. If we are to accept episode 4's 1998 to also be fiction, we can't just conveniently ignore this theme; considering what else the author "Hachijou Touya" has written, it does not bode well for a reliable depiction of reality.

There's a difference between a misleading narrative and a series of scenes presenting what amounts to a bullet list of facts that could have been told to anyone somehow being entirely without factual merit.

You guys kidding? If Umineko isn't a deconstruction of mystery I don't know what is.

Well then... you don't know what is.

[AuraTwilight]

You guys kidding? If Umineko isn't a deconstruction of mystery I don't know what is.

It's not. A deconstruction requires deliberate intent on the part of the writer. Furthermore, a deconstuction involves unbuilding tropes and applying real-world logic to them....which Umineko does not do. At all. To the point that we don't even know what the fuck qualifies for "real" in this series.

Not to mention that Ryukishi is not competent enough to do a deconstruction of it whatsoever. If it was his intention he fucked it up miserably.

[ClannadDango]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Was it literally the same Tom Riddle from Harry Potter? Because that name is in fact a literary reference to something else.

He disguised Voldemort's name well for copyright reasons. First when Mina asked how he know about her magic charm he claims that he teaches occult studies at a school up north (Voldemort wanted to be the Dark Arts professor but was never allowed however it is in his personality to lie about what he thinks he deserves).
When asked for his name he said this: "Well my first name's Tom, my second's a marvel, my third's a conundrum." Tom Marvolo Riddle = Voldemort.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's not. A deconstruction requires deliberate intent on the part of the writer. Furthermore, a deconstuction involves unbuilding tropes and applying real-world logic to them....which Umineko does not do.

Detective. Authority.

Originally Posted by Renall

There's a difference between a misleading narrative and a series of scenes presenting what amounts to a bullet list of facts that could have been told to anyone somehow being entirely without factual merit.

It's a fair point-that the nature and presentation of the information is different.

We might not need to have this argument since I think only certain facts are purely fictional embellishments. I should clarify some examples of what I'm guessing to be fact vs. pure fiction.

Probably facts in reality:

• Eva died in 1998
• Ange and Eva had a rocky relationship
• Ange went to that private school and was unpopular
• Ange vanished from the public when Eva died
• The bottle-stories were (allegedly) found
• The bottle-stories' handwriting matches that of Beatrice's in Maria's diary (matched if the diary no longer exists)
• The bottle-stories are extensive enough that someone might call them massive
• Multiple Sakutarou dolls exist

Probably pure fiction:

• Ange having Maria's diary
• Ange having Mammon
• Ange jumping off of a skyscraper and living (lawl)
• Beatrice's mysterious payoff letters to relatives of the deceased
• Ange's adventure to and death on Rokkenjima

Note that in general I believe information presented that witch hunters could independently verify is factual, and information hard to independently verify is fictional.

[AuraTwilight]

He disguised Voldemort's name well for copyright reasons. First when Mina asked how he know about her magic charm he claims that he teaches occult studies at a school up north (Voldemort wanted to be the Dark Arts professor but was never allowed however it is in his personality to lie about what he thinks he deserves).
When asked for his name he said this: "Well my first name's Tom, my second's a marvel, my third's a conundrum." Tom Marvolo Riddle = Voldemort.

Haha, that's awesome.

Still don't think that scene means what you're saying it does considering what I know of Alan Moore as a professional, but I haven't read what you're talking about.

Detective. Authority.

Yes...AND?

The Detective's Authority is not a deconstruction of anything existing anywhere in the Mystery Genre, or atleast not in anything that a respectable fan of the literature would respect as anything worthy of their time. Ryukishi took a trend he thinks was there, omitted multiple crucial details, like how protagonist detectives are often official officers of the laws or are hired by the people involved, but otherwise having LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to tell people what to do. Ryukishi didn't want to put the effort into portraying these accurately, so he just went "Fuck it, I'm making Erika a goddamn Atheist Witch or something."

That's not deconstruction. That's something we call Strawmanning. I can't even call it a parody because it doesn't accurately capture the thing it's trying to comment on. It would be like if I made a series about giant robot anime, and I had all of the giant robots piloted by non-sentient computers, totally removing the human element of the show, and then using that to demonstrate why giant robot anime is dumb bullshit merchandising with no appreciable story aspects by lack of characterization. Anyone in their right minds would rightly call me on my crap.

Ange jumping off of a skyscraper and living (lawl)

If Ange jumped off a skyscraper and survived, wouldn't that be on the news? It'd be easily verifiable.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Ryukishi took a trend he thinks was there, omitted multiple crucial details, like how protagonist detectives are often official officers of the laws or are hired by the people involved, but otherwise having LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to tell people what to do. Ryukishi didn't want to put the effort into portraying these accurately, so he just went "Fuck it, I'm making Erika a goddamn Atheist Witch or something."

Whoah hold your horses, where'd you get that idea.
You basically mixed up two big streams of detective literatur and again (like many people here) completely ignored anything that is going on in Japan's detective mysteries.
Yes, in the Golden Age detectives were mostly rather famous scholars or retired officials who were hired because they were regarded to be trustworthy to keep silent about the often scandlous cases that were discussed.
In the Hard Boiled genre we have retired officials or private detectives, who were a deconstruction of the detective of the Golden Age anyway.

But in modern Japanese detective fiction we have a whole bunch of amateur detectives not only due to manga characters like Young Kindaichi or Edogawa Conan. There is Ayatsuji's Shimada Kiyoshi, Kyôgoku's Kyôgokudo, Tsukatô's Mikikaze and even if you go as far back as the 60's there is Kindaichi Kôsuke himself, who is nothing more than a drifter who only gains fame throughout the series.
Sorry, but this was one of the points where your arrogance made you blind to the fact that Erika is very well a clever deconstruction of almost every famous detective in current Japanese detective fiction.
They are basically people who have no authority except that they are knowledgable and somehow accepted as the only objective source of information and therefore the only trustworthy person in the whole story. This was actually already deconstructed then and again by some authors like Tsukatô or Norizuki.

[AuraTwilight]

But in modern Japanese detective fiction we have a whole bunch of amateur detectives not only due to manga characters like Young Kindaichi or Edogawa Conan. There is Ayatsuji's Shimada Kiyoshi, Kyôgoku's Kyôgokudo, Tsukatô's Mikikaze and even if you go as far back as the 60's there is Kindaichi Kôsuke himself, who is nothing more than a drifter who only gains fame throughout the series.
Sorry, but this was one of the points where your arrogance made you blind to the fact that Erika is very well a clever deconstruction of almost every famous detective in current Japanese detective fiction.

Except, no, that's a false comparison. A lot of those examples, like Young Kindaichi or Edogawa Conan, are either not taken seriously by the people around them, or earn the trust they're given after time after time proving that they deserve it, and even then often have a personal connection, like having a consistent friend or ally who acts as a Watson or otherwise a trustworthy connection to the clients and other Persons of Interest.

It's not comparable to Erika at all. She just drops out of fucking nowhere and everyone does what she says, no questions asked, for no reason whatsoever, because she basically has magic powers.

They are basically people who have no authority except that they are knowledgable and somehow accepted as the only objective source of information and therefore the only trustworthy person in the whole story. This was actually already deconstructed then and again by some authors like Tsukatô or Norizuki.

Regardless, those characters still have SOME reason for being trusted, and not just for their knowledge. Erika may be an attempt at a deconstruction, MAYBE, but if so it was very poorly done, and I still don't think she's a deconstruction of the Detective so much as Ryukishi getting on his soapbox and going on about "Loveless Detectives" and basically telling his fans "THIS IS YOU" and all that shit. Frankly, it's not important; a single deconstructive character does not make a Deconstructive Work.

Btw thanks for calling me arrogant. That was totally appropriate and deserved and not at all rude.