AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-05-14, 16:22   Link #32301
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Truth cannot be blamed for anything because Truth does not do anything. And yes, the same argument would apply to a weapon; weapons are just objects and value-neutral; the decision of an agent to create or keep them is the moral act
Yes. But saying this maybe you didn't quite catch my drift: truth itself doesn't harm people, but the people affected by the truth decided whether the affect has been harmful, so to say, bit like bullets: in no situation person getting shot decide the situation to be neutral and non-harmful. Thus saying truth should be revealed because "it itself is neutral" is wrong, as even if the truth is neutral, it can still hurt the persons affected. This is the pillar of the logic behind battler and pretty much everyone's actions concerning the truth. Denying this fact is not possible. Ange itself decided after hearing the truth that the truth was seen as negative. It is a fact. Logical neutrality has no place in here.

Quote:
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.
You are pretty much on point here, characters (like kinzo) acting illogical, but as you yourself clearly stated, you see the reasons for this in the general direction of the episode.

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?
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 16:37   Link #32302
SonozakiUshiromiya
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.
__________________
SonozakiUshiromiya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 16:52   Link #32303
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormin View Post
Yes. But saying this maybe you didn't quite catch my drift: truth itself doesn't harm people, but the people affected by the truth decided whether the affect has been harmful, so to say, bit like bullets: in no situation person getting shot decide the situation to be neutral and non-harmful. Thus saying truth should be revealed because "it itself is neutral" is wrong, as even if the truth is neutral, it can still hurt the persons affected. This is the pillar of the logic behind battler and pretty much everyone's actions concerning the truth. Denying this fact is not possible. Ange itself decided after hearing the truth that the truth was seen as negative. It is a fact. Logical neutrality has no place in here.
They had no way of knowing that. And since we never got to see it ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether the reaction was appropriate. It could all be forced bullshit, how can we tell if we don't get to judge it ourselves? It's a cheap way to garner a particular reaction without actually having to defend its rational coherency. "Well whatever it was, it must've been pretty messed up, just like everybody said!" is not particularly useful.

Also maybe it's none of our business how Ange reacts.
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?
I have absolutely no idea what you're driving at here and I'm not sure you do either. Can you restate your point in a manner that makes a bit more sense? I'm not sure I even agree with your characterizations of my arguments, but I'm not fully clear from these paragraphs what those characterizations actually are.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 16:57   Link #32304
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
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."
I can (at least partially) agree with this.

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
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 17:07   Link #32305
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
They had no way of knowing that. And since we never got to see it ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether the reaction was appropriate. It could all be forced bullshit, how can we tell if we don't get to judge it ourselves? It's a cheap way to garner a particular reaction without actually having to defend its rational coherency. "Well whatever it was, it must've been pretty messed up, just like everybody said!" is not particularly useful.
If we suppose the truth is someone killing people and these people being close relatives/persons to ange, then yes, they did have a way of knowing that. The thing is that every character believed they knew what was best for ange: maybe you can view this as negative thing, deciding for others and all that, but it was their attempt at doing something right. It is not bad scriptwriting or shitty characterization. It itself doesn't make people covering the truth "bad" or "unlogical".

Quote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're driving at here and I'm not sure you do either. Can you restate your point in a manner that makes a bit more sense?
-You think people bad because no truth
-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?
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 17:23   Link #32306
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
If we suppose the truth is someone killing people and these people being close relatives/persons to ange, then yes, they did have a way of knowing that. The thing is that every character believed they knew what was best for ange: maybe you can view this as negative thing, deciding for others and all that, but it was their attempt at doing something right. It is not bad scriptwriting or shitty characterization. It itself doesn't make people covering the truth "bad" or "unlogical".
That's not the point. The point is they have no way of seeing, evaluating, judging, or assessing Ange's life beyond 1986. They are missing 12 years of information and judging her entirely on one event. The Rokkenjima Incident was just the START, and they don't know SHIT about everything that came out because of that, like the Witch Hunter fandom.

Quote:
-You think people bad because no truth
-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"
As someone who shares Renall's exact opinion on this issue, all four of these points are completely incorrect and patronizingly misleading.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 17:49   Link #32307
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormin View Post
-You think people bad because no truth
I do not know what this means. I think people who intentionally conspire to hide the truth are morally wrong to do so for any reason, but some reasons are more comprehensible and forgivable than others.

Doing it merely because one believes another is not capable of understanding it is pretty much evil though.
Quote:
-You still accept it was a part of scriptwriting and Ryu's message to us
What is "it?" I certainly accept that Ryukishi had a particular intent. All authors do.
Quote:
-You think opinions bad
Opinions are not useful to an argument in and of themselves. An opinion is basically the endpoint to an argument and is useless related by itself. There need to be factual and ethical foundations in a person's background that explain how they understand things and thus makes sense of why they would hold a particular opinion and what they rely upon to form it. It's predictive and should be consistent, or at least consistently examined to understand inconsistencies and work to correct them. Otherwise two parties can never locate common ground and there is no point to actually arguing.

I believe that people who hold only opinions without a necessary rational backing to them have less valuable opinions. Their opinions are not equivalent to my own. Merely expressing a vague thought is not the same as possessing a coherent philosophy and never has been. These things most certainly are subject to qualitative comparison, and it is frustrating to have to deal with people incapable of understanding that.
Quote:
-Your argument being "it doesn't match with my morality"
You have no idea what an argument about the moral or ethical implications of basically anything is if this is your thought process.

First, one establishes one's ethical framework. Next, one consumes a work. Thereafter, one attempts to determine what the work is saying, whether it does so effectively, whether it is coherent, and so forth. Finally, one judges it on the basis of one's existing moral framework, taking into account points made by the work and seeing if they challenge how one thinks about ethics. It is possible to believe a work makes an excellent attempt at making its point while disagreeing with its premises or conclusions. Certain individuals in this very thread disagree with me on that point, but because I have some understanding of their intellectual foundation I at least understand why they believe so.

My argument is not merely that the work (or at least ep8) fails the final step, but that it fails both that step and the one before it, but conceding that it may not actually fail the final step and that this may simply be an artifact of failure on the actual execution of the work as a work. And yes, standards do exist for these sorts of things within which opinions may operate; that does not mean there is no standard and all thoughts are opinions. Some opinions are wrong or poorly thought out.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 18:17   Link #32308
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
I don't think it is necessary to go over my thought process as I believed it was already very clear, but seemingly not, and auratwilight jumping the bandwagon, here I go again:

We can argue whether people treating ange in ep 8 is justified, but ultimately it boils up to what one sees as justified means of treatment: probably strongest argument backing up my view I have, the fact entire episode (including every lesson and actions of personnel, that I have already covered previously) are clearly meant to give a message of a loving family that considers the best of ange. This is the message ryu meant to give. This can be seen as "shit writing" if you will, but I dare to disagree when it is perfectly in line with the story. The fact that you are digging a different interpretation of the story is clearly digging somewhere that digging is not supposed to happen.

Now, as many people seem to have arrived to conclusion that it is morally wrong not to treat ange the way she is treated: in the end this results in opinion claiming that "the characters are wrong" or "the story is broken", but to understand this situation is to be understood this in no way is the intended message. If you can read this kind of message from the situation it means you disagree with the actions of the characters described in the story, that basically means you have different moral viewpoint and would have treated ange and her existence otherwise.

So in the end, the entire argument about treatment of ange is about "what arguing person believes to be morally correct treatment". This is very much subjective opinion. If I agree with the opinions presented in the game, that doesn't mean the morality inside the game is wrong, even if it includes aspects that could have been done better, because morality as a concept cannot be presented as "right" or "wrong", because naturally, morality doesn't even exist.

The disagreement with the game is a showcase of ones own moralistic standpoint, and in no way, in any line with the story the game is trying to show. Disagreeing with the story is okay. Arguing over theories is extremely fun. But saying that the story is wrong because lessons of subjective view of morality is not a way to go.

We can also argue close to endlessly whether ryu knew what he was doing as a scriptwriter, but that once again is a matter of subjectivity, while our only basis of arguing is the story presented to us and our own take on morality.
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 18:49   Link #32309
SonozakiUshiromiya
Reading your tale. :)
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Just out of sight, eating popcorn. >:D
I believe I get what you're trying to convey, albiet I personally go out of my way to understand different viewpoints to a fault, so what I said is pointless? Eh.
You may be misunderstanding the (very)important differences between intent and execution and I reckon critique, but this whole shebang is full of semi-broad topics in the context of this discussion so adding more wouldn't help. Anyway, your conflating of the issues brought forth are not helping discussion in the least.
-Loving someone, no matter the intensity, does not give you centain knowledge of what is best for how that person should conduct themselves throughout their lives. It certainly doesn't inform you how to pilot their thoughts, feelings, and actions the way you want.
-It helps you decide what you think is best for them from your own feelings. You would have a better idea of what the person in question would need if you tried to learn of their actual thoughts and feelings, by taking note of their dialouge and actions through general or specific happenstance, or just asking them directly.

As we're spinning in what I feel is a drain, maybe a small idea of mine might garner fresh discussion.
Spoiler for I always drop this train of thought to go back to it later...:
__________________
SonozakiUshiromiya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 20:56   Link #32310
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
I feel like, by treating Twilight as a work that was intended to impart a lesson to the real Ange, we might be approaching it the wrong way. By the time Twilight was written, the real Ange seems to have already been missing for a long time and presumed dead, so maybe the work isn't actually addressed to her, or at least not primarily to her?

I think there are two or three other purposes Tohya could have written it for.

1) A cathartic exercise to convince himself to let the past go, with Twilight!Ange as a stand-in for himself.

2) A persuasive piece to get the Witch Hunters to stop speculating irresponsibly about the incident. In this case, Twilight!Ange probably reflects the Witch Hunters' caricature of the real Ange.

3) An attempt to explain to himself how Ange, who was by that point 99% certain to be dead, could possibly still be alive, and why she had disappeared in that case. In other words, an attempt to construct a gold truth so that he could hold onto hope. Twilight!Ange would then be "the kind of Ange necessary for that scenario", rather than an accurate reflection of the real one.

Personally, I like option 3 because it fits the theme of looking for an unlikely but happy possible world and also lines up with Featherine's promise to create a good ending for Ange in EP6. What does everyone else think?
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 21:07   Link #32311
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 30
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
First, one establishes one's ethical framework. Next, one consumes a work. Thereafter, one attempts to determine what the work is saying, whether it does so effectively, whether it is coherent, and so forth. Finally, one judges it on the basis of one's existing moral framework, taking into account points made by the work and seeing if they challenge how one thinks about ethics.
I think the problem that Dormin and to a certain extent I myself have with your point of view is that it appears very rigid. It is a good thing to have a firm believe in one's moral standards and a concept of right and wrong which works in the context of the society you are living in, but you appear to be of the opinion that only your moral standard is fully thought through. Valuing the system of one's own culture higher than that of others is a problem often brought up when discussing differences in ethical frameworks.

This is a problem also often brought up when reading literary works from another cultural context, either separated by time or space. Take for example Theodor Fontanes "Irrungen, Wirrungen" (lit: Errors, Confusions), which was taking a moral stance on love between members of different social classes. The final moral was, everyone should forget about the foolish notion of love and rather learn to live content in the realm of one's social standard. From a 20th century post-post-war perspective this appears to be a horrible message, but from a 1888 perspective this was a valid point that agreed with the ethical framework of society at large.

I'm not saying that all Japanese are what you would call a "paternalistic asshole" or that they are all "insane people who would let their family die", I'd rather say that key aspects, like filial piety, the value of individualism vs. the greater good, denying truth in favor of upholding a stable standard, are inserted differently in the larger ethical framework.
You say you are among the few people here who has thought this through and that people who don't commit to one singular idea of ethics are inherently to indecisive to lead this discussion, but I for example simply take a stance of skepticism on your altruistic stance.

Quote:
And yes, standards do exist for these sorts of things within which opinions may operate; that does not mean there is no standard and all thoughts are opinions. Some opinions are wrong or poorly thought out.
Yes, but even the standard is created, unless of course you believe in a god-given standard of right and wrong, which would position us at dangerously different ends of the spectrum. I see myself as doubting the existence of a pre-existing moral standard, which humans have to adhere to, I merely believe that a system in which all people have equal opportunity to become satisfied is the most beneficial and has developed due to historical influences.

To take this back to Umineko, our view of what makes characters "evil" and thus counteract a supposed message conveyed in the beginning of the story seems inherently different.
I would even agree that characters act morally ambiguous in Twilight of the Golden Witch, but they are not judged as evil for reasons of different views of rights and responsibilities. I would argue that Meta-Battler's portrayal is morally ambiguous, but there is a clear highlight on his good intentions. I would even agree with you that there is a hint of egoistical motivation behind his action, shown by him refusing to let Ange read the book that he offered up to Beatrice, but I have to disagree with you on the point that there is something wrong with him not being painted the antagonist simply by him denying his sister a truth that he deems harmful to her.
I would go so far as to say that there are no morally correct characters found within Umineko, they are rather drawn intentionally ambiguous to a point of becoming completely separate narrative items within the story.
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-14, 23:28   Link #32312
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
3) An attempt to explain to himself how Ange, who was by that point 99% certain to be dead, could possibly still be alive, and why she had disappeared in that case. In other words, an attempt to construct a gold truth so that he could hold onto hope. Twilight!Ange would then be "the kind of Ange necessary for that scenario", rather than an accurate reflection of the real one.

Personally, I like option 3 because it fits the theme of looking for an unlikely but happy possible world and also lines up with Featherine's promise to create a good ending for Ange in EP6. What does everyone else think?
The problem there is he ends up really flogging himself for... what, exactly? He's not Battler. It's not his fault about whatever may have happened to Ange (presumably he didn't know enough about it until around or well after 1998). There wasn't really a whole lot he could do, and he doesn't have a specific obligation to a stranger who happens to be related to the person who used to own his body. Yet he's really, truly, seriously savaging himself emotionally here.

And why is it the Ange he constructs has to be so hostile? Why does the Battler he constructs have to be so patronizing? It's not merely "I want to create an Ange who could live and let go," but creating an Ange who is distressingly tormented and trying to walk her back from the edge. But why is that particular conception of Ange "necessary" to his gold truth of a desired miracle? Why not just assume an Ange who was more like the ep4 Ange? Had he already done that (that is, is that what Alliance's 1998 segment was)? What was it about that Ange that he didn't like? Why did he make a subsequent one so much more childish and vengeful?

It's certainly not a terrible idea, but it asks us to try to decipher for him the motive behind crafting the characters in such a fashion as he does. It seems odd that his goal involves basically putting Twilight-Ange through Hell to make a point to her that he's written her to be immensely stubborn about in the first place. What purpose does this serve to him? What is he getting out of this that he can't get elsewhere?

To some extent, I could see an alternative you hadn't proposed:

4) A self-dialectic attempt to figure out how he could explain himself to Ange if he ever met her. It's self-tormenting on every level because he is essentially a different person with incomplete memories who can't answer the questions he can imagine that Ange would have for him, and worries that his own personal failure to be able to do that would cause her far greater emotional turmoil than the comfort of discovering that he's alive. He tries, repeatedly, to dream up solutions to this problem ("tell her a gentle lie," "tell her exactly what she wants to hear," "tell her something so awful she just won't be able to doubt that I'm telling the truth"), but he realizes that he can't accept any of those solutions and believes the Ange of his mind can't accept them either. Taking your notion of this being Tohya and not Ange, he's the one making the Trick/Magic decision: Believe that Ange is irrevocably lost (and thus imagine her becoming a monster consumed by all the things he fears he's failed to answer for her) so that you can keep existing as a stranger to her, or just figure that somehow she was able to reconcile things better than you can imagine and hope that she's happy.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 05:58   Link #32313
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Out of the 4 possible made explanation for episode 8, I find first two actually very plausible. Both could be seen as explanations ryu was trying to give. As I have probably made myself clear, I have absolutely no love towards renalls scenario, even though I can understand where he is going at and he at least has some interesting points.

But in the third interpretation the thing is that I thought, at least in the end of episode 8, that battler is painfully aware of himself and the others being dead. So more than writing ange back to life, it felt like entire episode is about writing everyone else to life: showing ange that there might exist a world of happiness. If we believe ange to be entirely "constructed" then she is at least to certain extent very angry kid. But does that mean the kiddy ange was entirely false, crafted by battler?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonozakiUshiromiya View Post
"I always drop this train of thought to go back to it later..."]People like to assume if Rudolf/Kyrie involvement, then Kyrie was at the head of things, or at least the spark of no return. I been thinking, why not Rudolf be the one to send things downhill, with Kyrie trying to mop up the mess he made(through inconsiderate means)?
This is actually kind of interesting take and worth considering. It basically boils up to what kind of person we think rudolf to be: I personally always thought he was more of an man attached to a penis. If I remember correctly, the only time we even see him to do any thinking is in ep 3, and that entire scene is basically borrowed from cowboy-films (that somehow makes the whole success of the plan somehow ridiculous).

But the thing is that he certainly has the same blood as his sisters. Even rosa, being the youngest, is shown as capable and smart person. I don't see how rudolf couldn't be the head of the things (even if it turns out he isn't the smartest head on the island) but I felt he was always standing in the shadow of kyrie and her superior brain capacity. Only real drive that rudolf had was highlighted sexual drive, and even in the ep 7 tea party, aside from being probably false, he was just tagging along like "yeah, well, okay".


And by the way auratwilight, I think the link in your signature leads to nowhere but empty page. I don't know if the problem is with my computer but thought you might want to check it out.
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 09:28   Link #32314
SonozakiUshiromiya
Reading your tale. :)
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Just out of sight, eating popcorn. >:D
Rudolf's probably the most characterized of the husbands, albiet he's got little development. Really the main thing that makes me consider this is his (imo)core character trait: He is willing and able to commit unpleasant, even cruel acts towards others, especially his loved ones, to preserve or allow him some sense of comfort. Those acts can snowball in an even worse situation, and while he has his regrets, he doesn't personally face up to any consequences(with the possible exception of the baby switch, as he likely tried to confess to Kyrie and Battler). We see this with Rosa's childhood and the baby switch.
And when it comes to Kyrie, he doesn't come off as feeling inferior to her because of her intellect; in fact, that's a trait he treasures and uses for his own advantage. He also shuts her up during the conference, yet it is those times when it's exposed he's been leaving her in the dark to both their detriment.

Oh, and doing a bit of searching, I found the page AT's fanfic is on: http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?p=4568848
__________________
SonozakiUshiromiya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 11:26   Link #32315
Drifloon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
I'm just going to point out that Meta-Battler in EP8 doesn't necessarily have to represent any kind of outside force at all for Ange. I've always taken the view that EP8 is Ange's internal struggle, so it's really more that she's asking herself whether it's worth finding the truth or not. Honestly the idea that Meta-Battler is forcing Ange to agree with his own ideas of what's best for her is pretty silly, since right from the start he stressed that it was ultimately Ange's own decision.

Really, the only problem I have with EP8's characterization is that Ange's entire development from EP4 is discarded for no obvious reason. You can come up with meta reasons for it, sure, but the fact that it's never brought up in the game itself is pretty poor writing in my view.
Drifloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 15:37   Link #32316
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonozakiUshiromiya View Post
Rudolf's probably the most characterized of the husbands, albiet he's got little development. Really the main thing that makes me consider this is his (imo)core character trait: He is willing and able to commit unpleasant, even cruel acts towards others, especially his loved ones, to preserve or allow him some sense of comfort. Those acts can snowball in an even worse situation, and while he has his regrets, he doesn't personally face up to any consequences(with the possible exception of the baby switch, as he likely tried to confess to Kyrie and Battler).
Funny thing I noticed that umineko is basically a story of strong female characters. The husbands, as stated, get very little character depth or development compared to females. While all the characters have clear personality, people like hideyoshi or gohda always felt bit flat in depth.

And on rudolf, I pretty much agree. Only thing is that describing him like this makes him really feel like a psychopath. Maybe he spent too much time with kyrie.

Quote:
Really, the only problem I have with EP8's characterization is that Ange's entire development from EP4 is discarded for no obvious reason. You can come up with meta reasons for it, sure, but the fact that it's never brought up in the game itself is pretty poor writing in my view.
Only problem I have with ange is that I never actually cared about her or her adventures. That doesn't mean she was badly written character (at least during the first arcs), as ryu spent heavy amounts of time writing about her as a character, but my problem is that every other character in the story is much more interesting. In ep 4 she felt like a poor deus ex machina, and in ep 3 she literally was a poor deus ex. I admit she had her moments, but rather than watching her traumatic childhood I'd had watched something that I find more interesting. She was okay in chiru as she had relatively small role until ep 8, but after she became once again one of the main characters I just hoped she'd return back to being a hamburger.
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 17:17   Link #32317
Valkama
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I'd have to disagree. I think the males in Umineko are pretty well characterized. I'll admit they don't get the development that the females of the story get but you can still learn quite a lot about their characters based on their actions and other peoples thoughts on them. The Females are just usually in the spotlight which causes you to overlook the males.
Valkama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 19:14   Link #32318
Witch of Uncertainty
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Hey guys, sorry for going completely off topic, but I'm not quite sure where to ask.
How popular is the Umineko visual novel in Japan? I gathered that the PS3 versions sold about 10-15k each, but anyone knows about the original Visual novel?
Witch of Uncertainty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-15, 19:25   Link #32319
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Honestly I'm not very prone in seeing Battler as a jerk for hiding the truth from Ange because:

- Battler handed Ange the key to open the book. She could have opened it. What he seemed to want was for Ange to listen to him first. Yes, it's implied he believes knowing the truth wouldn't do any good to Ange, that he wishes to persuade her not to pursue it but, ultimately, it doesn't look like he could force her forever to never reach it.

- Battler is actually MetaBattler and MetaBattler isn't a real person. As he doesn't exist but it's just the creation of someone else his knowledge might be tied to this. If it's Ange's creation and his actions are due to her belief that Tohya=Battler yet Tohya is avoiding her and denying her the truth, there's no way MetaBattler, as Ange's fantasy, can tell her something that she doesn't know.
If Battler is instead Tohya's creations we have two possibilities:
1) Tohya, as he said, didn't remember the truth. It's probably hidden in his Battler's side but he can't reach it. So he can represent a Battler that knows the truth but, unless it'll be off screen, his Battler will never be able to directly tell the truth to Ange.
2) Tohya remembered the truth and the thing shocked him so much he had a fit and nearly killed himself. The whole experience shocked him so much that he build up the belief that TRUTH IS HARMFUL because for him it was. Yes, for Ange it might not be, but he has right in front of himself an example of how harmful truth can be. Even though he might have learnt that for Ange it was harmful as well not knowing he might have believed it was the lesser of the evil.

Ultimately the message is that Battler's intentions are good. Till the end he believes Ange would be happier not knowing. If he took the wrong decision I think it's more that he's being an idiot unable to understand Ange than a jerk.

Also: we don't know which would have been Ange's reaction at knowing the truth and Umineko said more than once that Ange planned to discover the truth and then let herself die. Sure, she might do the mature thing and get over with it. She could also have done the mature thing and accept that she might never discover the truth and she should live dealing with it. Many people will never discover why their dear ones died, or if they're alive or dead and yet survive.

It really depends on Ange.

However, I think part of the blame relies on Umineko. Many characters act in a way that's not... the most common way to act and yet the whole structure of their thoughts so that one can say: "Well, yes, for that person there was no other way to act in that moment, he was unable to see the most rational path." and even when it's explained it really doesn't seem that much believable. Sure, different culture doesn't help but sometimes it seems really hard to think it was okay for them to pick up such dumb solutions.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-05-16, 01:32   Link #32320
Drifloon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Funny thing I noticed that umineko is basically a story of strong female characters. The husbands, as stated, get very little character depth or development compared to females. While all the characters have clear personality, people like hideyoshi or gohda always felt bit flat in depth.
Yeah, this has been pointed out before. It is sort of interesting that Ryukishi seems much more interested in the female PoVs than the male ones, to the point where I'd say Battler is probably the only really fleshed-out male PoV in the series (and even with him, we know pretty much nothing about the six years he was away from the family...but we can presume that's just because nothing of particular note happened with him in that time).

I've actually often wondered whether Ryukishi has some kind of gender identity issues, since he seems so interested in writing about the female state of mind and in several interviews he gives the impression that he's thought a lot about the differences between the traditional worldviews of men and women. Heck, he even said once that he would imagine that most people who'd be able to understand Umineko would be women, which is interesting because why would a man expect women to understand his work better than other men? Not to mention the whole Yasu thing would suggest he's at least somewhat interested in the subject of gender confusion. I dunno, could be just my imagination, but I have gotten this impression quite a few times. It's probably kind of rude to even speculate about this kind of stuff, but I can't help but wonder occasionally.

Anyways, on Ange, well...I personally think she was a really fascinating character in EP4, but I think she definitely had too much time spent on her. Or rather, too much time spent just reiterating the same points; there were just way too many scenes of her learning summoning magic and playing with Sakutaro and the stakes, which were all pretty much the same thing and got really redundant after a while. Outside of that, I think her development in that episode is really good. EP8 Ange is a much weaker character to me, and I feel like EP8's obvious rushedness is probably a big part of that.
Drifloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.