[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[AuraTwilight]

No hostility; not from me anyway. I wasn't calling Wanderer dishonest just now, just explaining why I had thought so once before.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm glad you've spoken to every policeman in the entire world and have confirmed their opinions on their moral duty.

Take Renall, for example. He is a LAWYER, and his ultimate concern is that the truth should be unveiled, regardless of who did what. I doubt he's the only one who feels that way.

That is the point of my argument. I believe that people believe that they do it for the truth itself...but truth itself to me is a concept created by humans based on their perception of reality. Take "You shall not kill"...why shouldn't we kill?! Of course because it disrupts human society and disables us to function as a social corpus, but it is a human made law that is treated as the truth because we have agreed on it. Unless of course you believe in a higher (magical/mystical) power which dictated us that rule.
Even Renall said that he does it for Justice...Justice does not necessarily equal Truth, even if most of the time we do try to portray them es equal cocepts.

Well, no, it happened because he wrote about it. I didn't wish for anyone to die. I read Umineko hoping that, like Higurashi, the tragedy could be PREVENTED. I don't want these characters to suffer, I want them to have a happy ending.

Please now don't get angry again, I know that might sound harsh but of course you did wish for somebody to die first. You started reading Umineko on the premise that "there is a murder case" this is at first equalled with "people die"...unless of course the whole murder case is a scam and everybody survived unnoticed.
That is the final note of some anti mystery starting with An Offering to Nothingness. We as a reader approach a detective mystery with the expectation of "a terrible murder case beyond human understanding". The author creates the setting and in Uminekos case (similar to a tabletop RPG) the Gamemaster prepares a setting in which that incident that we wish for might happen.
Didn't many of us cheer inside when Beatrice announced for the curtain above that stage of tragedy shall open again? Of course we want the best result possible, but for our enjoyment we also wished for terror to come first.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by haguruma

...why shouldn't we kill?! Of course because it disrupts human society and disables us to function as a social corpus, but it is a human made law that is treated as the truth because we have agreed on it. Unless of course you believe in a higher (magical/mystical) power which dictated us that rule..

I think you're invoking a fallacy with this example. And I'll offer another example in turn. People used to believe that 'miasma's' in the air caused physical illnesses, but we later found out this was caused by microscopic creatures called "germs" or bacteria. Now is it the truth that germs causes illnesses because people agree on it? Or is it the truth because someone discovered germs found out what they were doing and came to that conclusion?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Judoh

I think you're invoking a fallacy with this example. And I'll offer another example in turn. People used to believe that 'miasma's' in the air caused physical illnesses, but we later found out this was caused by microscopic creatures called "germs" or bacteria. Now is it the truth that germs causes illnesses because people agree on it? Or is it the truth because someone discovered germs found out what they were doing and came to that conclusion?

Now assume that we later find out that germs are sentient creatures which through magical powers decide to make whoever ingests them ill. The truth that bacteria cause illnesses through a biological process would become as wrong as the miasma-theory.
Knowledge is merely a theory that people have agreed on based on how we view the world. It's basically impossible to get access to any higher form of "Objective Truth" because it would call for us to step out of our position as humans...maybe even out of this universe.

[Sherringford]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

No hostility; not from me anyway. I wasn't calling Wanderer dishonest just now, just explaining why I had thought so once before.

Honestly, you get angry way too easily and it ruins your argument because it gets to a point where you portray your logic in such an unfavorable light that even if people agree with it they aren't likely to admit it.

Hell, I agree with most of your points, you know that. But even I didn't want to admit you were right because of your tone. Even though I agree with you. That's what I mean. Just...calm down a bit. It gets a bit distracting.

Originally Posted by haguruma

The problem that Ryûkishi saw and that is quite prevalent in some schools of mystery fiction is, that the idea of a master-detective itself is what reduced detective fiction from mind-puzzles to mere entertainment literature. When Ryûkishi likened it to a hero-novel in the latest interview I found that pretty clever, because it really does create a setting in which reasoning is basically unnecessary because the detective will step in in the end and solve the case.

I disagree with that comparison because in heroic fantasy, you are never really in peril. It's the characters that are in danger, it's their world that could end. But in mystery fiction you are in danger.

"Will I be able to solve this or will the detective need to rescue me from the ocean of lies?"

While the detective will indeed rescue you if you need to, the fact you are able to not need his aid at all is what separates it from heroic fantasy. There's nothing we can do in Harry Potter, for example. He always saves the reader from reading a story where the evil ones win.

Now, in the mystery genre, it's different. You can still solve it before the detective sweeps in for that one heroic pose. In other words, while you will be undoubtedly saved if you need such help, you are still given the tools so that you don't need to be saved.

While the reader can choose to read the genre as a heroic fantasy where he just sits back and watches the detective rescue him, he has the option not to dos, an option that is not present in fantasy.

And I don't see the problem in presenting the reader with options. Traditional mystery presents the reader with the options of "challenging the riddle intellectually" and "enjoying the ride." Removing the safety net, the detective, from the equation, limits the genre rather than expand it in my opinion.

I see why anti-mystery exists, but I disagree with it on that basis.

Originally Posted by haguruma

Please now don't get angry again, I know that might sound harsh but of course you did wish for somebody to die first. You started reading Umineko on the premise that "there is a murder case" this is at first equalled with "people die"...unless of course the whole murder case is a scam and everybody survived unnoticed.
That is the final note of some anti mystery starting with An Offering to Nothingness. We as a reader approach a detective mystery with the expectation of "a terrible murder case beyond human understanding". The author creates the setting and in Uminekos case (similar to a tabletop RPG) the Gamemaster prepares a setting in which that incident that we wish for might happen.
Didn't many of us cheer inside when Beatrice announced for the curtain above that stage of tragedy shall open again? Of course we want the best result possible, but for our enjoyment we also wished for terror to come first.

This I actually agree with. When I read a mystery novel, I want a murder to happen so the plot actually goes somewhere. I just don't see this as a problem.(I'm not sure if you are implying this is a problem though)

This is hardly a genre specific matter though, as I think wishing for the world to be in trouble in epic fantasy to be a slightly more devastating wish than for a single murder.

Literature runs on conflict, so it's hardly something worth batting an eye at. People like seeing the triumphant moments in a story, and for triumph to exist it then dark moments need to exist as well.

For example, say you are playing soccer. If you always win without any trouble, then you'll get bored. Now, if a rival team appears that is as good as you, you'll have good motivation to beat them. You want conflict to appear in your life so you can reach higher places.

You can't reach the top if you don't jump down the bottom to use it as a springboard.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Sherringford

I disagree with that comparison because in heroic fantasy, you are never really in peril. It's the characters that are in danger, it's their world that could end. But in mystery fiction you are in danger.

[...]Removing the safety net, the detective, from the equation, limits the genre rather than expand it in my opinion.

I see why anti-mystery exists, but I disagree with it on that basis.

Of course, it basically limits the work to a very narrow audience and makes it pretty much harder to enjoy. I agree with you completely and, as I said, would have preferred Umineko to have such an "rip the envelope open and read the solution if you're not clever enough/want to test your solution" option. It would have made Umineko more enjoyable in terms of entertainment literature.

But I respect the idea that Ryûkishi expressed of wanting to provide a mystery that provides the utmost respect to those who refuse that help from the detective. It is an interesting idea and I respect that and think it was a necessary experiment...even though I can't say that it is my taste completely.

This I actually agree with. When I read a mystery novel, I want a murder to happen so the plot actually goes somewhere. I just don't see this as a problem.(I'm not sure if you are implying this is a problem though)

No, it is not a problem at all. And I agree with you that this is neither genre-specific nor anything particularly new or astonishing. But it is something that people tend to forget (as shown when people disagree with that claim) and therefore it is something very interesting to bring up on a meta-fictional level.
The question is how strong it is expressed in that meta-frame and I liked it how offensive Umineko got in the end.

[Sherringford]

Oh I respect the idea of trying to write a mystery that doesn't rely on the detective as well. It was a nice experiment, even if the result didn't turn out to be exactly what I wanted. Still, I think a lot of the problems the series had was that it was an experimental piece of work and it was his first shot at anything of the kind.

As soon as the series was over, I was pretty much saying I'd never read anything he ever wrote again because of how disappointed I felt. But now that things have calmed down and I can just look back at it, I'd love to see him attempt another mystery using everything he learned in Umineko.

[AuraTwilight]

That is the point of my argument. I believe that people believe that they do it for the truth itself...but truth itself to me is a concept created by humans based on their perception of reality. Take "You shall not kill"...why shouldn't we kill?! Of course because it disrupts human society and disables us to function as a social corpus, but it is a human made law that is treated as the truth because we have agreed on it. Unless of course you believe in a higher (magical/mystical) power which dictated us that rule.
Even Renall said that he does it for Justice...Justice does not necessarily equal Truth, even if most of the time we do try to portray them es equal cocepts.

You can't really equate a fact or a piece of knowledge with a commandment or a law. They're two different concepts.

Please now don't get angry again, I know that might sound harsh but of course you did wish for somebody to die first. You started reading Umineko on the premise that "there is a murder case" this is at first equalled with "people die"...unless of course the whole murder case is a scam and everybody survived unnoticed.

I wasn't angry in that statement, I just used caps for emphasis. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I actually didn't wish for anyone to die even initially. What drew me was the battle between Battler and Beatrice. If no deaths were involved, I'd still read it; the murder mystery is irrelevant to me, I was in it for the meta-story.

Therefore, for a writer to accuse me of desiring murders to happen for my own entertainment is nothing short of arrogant presumption on their part.

Now assume that we later find out that germs are sentient creatures which through magical powers decide to make whoever ingests them ill. The truth that bacteria cause illnesses through a biological process would become as wrong as the miasma-theory.
Knowledge is merely a theory that people have agreed on based on how we view the world. It's basically impossible to get access to any higher form of "Objective Truth" because it would call for us to step out of our position as humans...maybe even out of this universe.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really mean anything, here. It doesn't matter whether or not the task is possible, there exist people who desire the 'Objective Truth' for it's own sake. Ryukishi doesn't approach this angle, however. He instead takes the easy way out by not depicting anyone who even TRIES. It's one thing to have a Pro-Reality person and have them fail; it's another to exclude such a person and imply that no one cares.

Honestly, you get angry way too easily and it ruins your argument because it gets to a point where you portray your logic in such an unfavorable light that even if people agree with it they aren't likely to admit it.

Hell, I agree with most of your points, you know that. But even I didn't want to admit you were right because of your tone. Even though I agree with you. That's what I mean. Just...calm down a bit. It gets a bit distracting.

I honestly haven't been that angry in the last few posts I've made; I just casually swear and whatnot because it's just how I talk. I honestly don't try to project an angry tone, but I'll try and avoid it. If it seems ambiguous, people, if you're UNSURE about my tone, assume I'm not angry.

As soon as the series was over, I was pretty much saying I'd never read anything he ever wrote again because of how disappointed I felt. But now that things have calmed down and I can just look back at it, I'd love to see him attempt another mystery using everything he learned in Umineko.

I concur....so long as he doesn't do shit like trying to justify serial killers again. That was seriously messed up.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I actually didn't wish for anyone to die even initially. What drew me was the battle between Battler and Beatrice. If no deaths were involved, I'd still read it; the murder mystery is irrelevant to me, I was in it for the meta-story.

Yet the meta-story only existed because of those events and in a way you at least let them happen, knowingly that it would mean those murderous events. You wouldn't have participated in these discussions at all if you hadn't been at least slightly thrilled by the idea.
It's nothing bad at all...it's the same when you watch a horror movie. You do it under the expectation that horrible events will torture the main character(s), so in a way you wish that to happen...yet you wish for a good solution for those characters you like. It's the dichotomy from which the tension of fiction arises.

If you weren't at least consenting to witness a bloody story of murder you wouldn't have started or at least continued Umineko at all.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really mean anything, here. It doesn't matter whether or not the task is possible, there exist people who desire the 'Objective Truth' for it's own sake. Ryukishi doesn't approach this angle, however. He instead takes the easy way out by not depicting anyone who even TRIES. It's one thing to have a Pro-Reality person and have them fail; it's another to exclude such a person and imply that no one cares.

I say he did in the case of two people: Battler for EP1-5 and Ange for 6-8. Those characters were at least under the assumption that what they were aiming at was The Real Truth. Battler wanted it and only slowly did he realize that matters might not be as easy as he thought them to be. It's Battlers failing which initializes the non-existence of an Objective Truth in Umineko.

I concur....so long as he doesn't do shit like trying to justify serial killers again. That was seriously messed up.

I still wouldn't say that he justified any serial killings...he would have if it was Beatrice who killed them all, but in the end it's very likely she didn't.

[AuraTwilight]

Yet the meta-story only existed because of those events and in a way you at least let them happen

But the concept of blaming witches and the supernatural can exist without murders. Bloodshed is irrelevant to my interests.

You wouldn't have participated in these discussions at all if you hadn't been at least slightly thrilled by the idea.

Again, you presume. I wished to find out the truth because I hoped that doing so could save, or atleast exonerate, Battler and his loved ones. The events already happened. My reading the story doesn't cause them.

If you weren't at least consenting to witness a bloody story of murder you wouldn't have started or at least continued Umineko at all.

Consenting to witnessing something isn't equivalent for wishing for it to happen. If footage exists of a murder, only watching it can give me information to catch the criminal, but not watching it wouldn't prevent the crime from happening.

And this is more accurate to our model of approaching Umineko, imo, because we are essentially the Witch Hunters. Author Theory treats it as if their 1986 was OUR 1986.

I say he did in the case of two people: Battler for EP1-5 and Ange for 6-8. Those characters were at least under the assumption that what they were aiming at was The Real Truth. Battler wanted it and only slowly did he realize that matters might not be as easy as he thought them to be. It's Battlers failing which initializes the non-existence of an Objective Truth in Umineko.

That's not even true, though, because Battler will deny the witch even if it's real, and refuses the obvious answer of a culprit being a family member because it's too sad. Same with Ange.

I still wouldn't say that he justified any serial killings...he would have if it was Beatrice who killed them all, but in the end it's very likely she didn't.

Indeed, but it seems he's trying to designate her as the culprit.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Please now don't get angry again, I know that might sound harsh but of course you did wish for somebody to die first. You started reading Umineko on the premise that "there is a murder case" this is at first equalled with "people die"...unless of course the whole murder case is a scam and everybody survived unnoticed.
That is the final note of some anti mystery starting with An Offering to Nothingness. We as a reader approach a detective mystery with the expectation of "a terrible murder case beyond human understanding". The author creates the setting and in Uminekos case (similar to a tabletop RPG) the Gamemaster prepares a setting in which that incident that we wish for might happen.
Didn't many of us cheer inside when Beatrice announced for the curtain above that stage of tragedy shall open again? Of course we want the best result possible, but for our enjoyment we also wished for terror to come first.

Well I don't know about you but I never wanted to see anybody die and was hoping initially for Battler to save everybody and then later for there to be some appropriate closure for the victims. But then I'm not a horrible person like some of these apparent mystery readers are (who are these people by the way?). Maybe that comes from not being a fan of the genre?

I don't enjoy it when bad things happen to good people. I don't enjoy it even when I know it's going to happen. I can't stand a film like Saw, not because of a lack of punishment, but because of a lack of resolution for those wronged. I'm even okay with Jason Voorhees coming back from the dead, as long as the last survivor gets to pump his hockey mask full of buckshot and think she's beaten him.

Originally Posted by haguruma

What people(!) in general care about when approaching a "murder case" or even a case of unsolved deaths is finding a culprit who they can condemn in order to feel secure about their own lifes...or maybe even feeling good because they were the ones who restored order.

Well, I don't know if that can apply to all people or anything. But procedurally, it's not always about finding and punishing the culprit. Don't get me wrong, that sort of vengeance-driven behavior is fairly popular in modern society and I think contributes to a great many miscarriages of justice, but it's not the only motive.

You listen to a lot of forensic examiners, they aren't really engaged in the search for a culprit most of the time. They do stuff like identify victims. Much of that is driven by the empathy for the victim and the desire that they at least be known in death. How much would it suck to just be some forgotten corpse? Why do you think Otzi the Iceman got a name? Or Lucy? We project our desire to be known onto others, but it's not such an unpleasant thing in the end.

The problem that Ryûkishi saw and that is quite prevalent in some schools of mystery fiction is, that the idea of a master-detective itself is what reduced detective fiction from mind-puzzles to mere entertainment literature. When Ryûkishi likened it to a hero-novel in the latest interview I found that pretty clever, because it really does create a setting in which reasoning is basically unnecessary because the detective will step in in the end and solve the case.

Who gives a shit?

Seriously, who gives a shit? So the detective solves it for people who can't. Or who don't want to. It is not the prerogative of the writer to force the reader to think if they don't want to.

I'm getting major vibes that this and that convention of literature or the other necessitates that the reader must do this or must not do that. Who gives a shit? The story is what it is once it's set before the reader, and there is no control over how the reader must approach the story. If I want to read The Name of the Rose by reading the first chapter and the last ten pages then a select random assortment of pages in the middle, that's completely my right and also a fictional example that I definitely didn't actually do in college because Umberto Eco is an impenetrable dick. Anyway what I'm saying is the reader will do whatever the reader wants, and if you are intentionally removing important or expected parts of your work just to force the reader to approach your work a particular way, you are an impenetrable dick like Umberto Eco in this totally fictional example from January of 2003 during one of the worst winters in the Northwest in decades.

Although that book did have an answer, which was nice because I only read that part. In this example.

Even Renall said that he does it for Justice...Justice does not necessarily equal Truth, even if most of the time we do try to portray them es equal cocepts,

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Take Renall, for example. He is a LAWYER, and his ultimate concern is that the truth should be unveiled, regardless of who did what. I doubt he's the only one who feels that way.

Bear in mind, this isn't what my job actually requires of me. My job actually requires me to advocate one side's position regardless of my personal belief. The hope is that the system sorts it out, of course. I like to think I don't engage in the practice of rampant truth-construction however.

Justice is subordinate to Truth. Justice is the desire to put Truth into action and apply it to those upon whom it must act. Of course it's imperfect, but it isn't baseless... to that end...

Originally Posted by haguruma

That is the point of my argument. I believe that people believe that they do it for the truth itself...but truth itself to me is a concept created by humans based on their perception of reality. Take "You shall not kill"...why shouldn't we kill?! Of course because it disrupts human society and disables us to function as a social corpus, but it is a human made law that is treated as the truth because we have agreed on it. Unless of course you believe in a higher (magical/mystical) power which dictated us that rule.

We can develop a system of ethics independent of the belief in a higher power which hands down those ethics. And philosophers have. It is not a requirement that we be able to point to an identifiable absolute to say that an absolute morality can exist. It is an arbitrary human construct, but it is precisely because we can as a species forge abstract constructs that we are able to even understand what makes behaviors moral in the first place. The universe does not tell Man how to act; Man realizes how he must act in order to be Man.

Now you could be contrary about this...

Originally Posted by haguruma

Knowledge is merely a theory that people have agreed on based on how we view the world. It's basically impossible to get access to any higher form of "Objective Truth" because it would call for us to step out of our position as humans...maybe even out of this universe.

...but remember!

Dream the impossible dream. Fight the unbeatable foe. Bear with unbearable sorrow. Right the unrightable wrong. Try when your arms are too weary. No matter how hopeless, no matter how far, etc. etc. etc.

And the world will be better for this: That one man, scorned and covered with scars, still strove with his last ounce of courage...

...TO REEEEEEACH THE UNREACHABLE STAAAAAAAAAAAAR!

[Sherringford]

Originally Posted by Renall

Well I don't know about you but I never wanted to see anybody die and was hoping initially for Battler to save everybody and then later for there to be some appropriate closure for the victims. But then I'm not a horrible person like some of these apparent mystery readers are (who are these people by the way?). Maybe that comes from not being a fan of the genre?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that people who want a murder to happen in a murder mystery are terrible people?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Sherringford

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that people who want a murder to happen in a murder mystery are terrible people?

I'm saying there seems to be an undercurrent in some of Ryukishi's discussion that somehow people who expect this sort of thing are horrible people. I am capable of understanding the difference between fantasy and reality and between expecting that a murder will happen in a murder mystery (which is simply anticipating the genre will indeed be the genre) and some sort of bloodthirstiness for a body to kick the fiction into gear, but I'm not sure if Ryukishi does.

The "Who are these people?" question was specifically because I've not met anyone who actually meets such a categorization, including all the purported mystery fans here, so I'm not sure whether any actual problem exists to be addressed.

[Sherringford]

Originally Posted by Renall

I'm saying there seems to be an undercurrent in some of Ryukishi's discussion that somehow people who expect this sort of thing are horrible people. I am capable of understanding the difference between fantasy and reality and between expecting that a murder will happen in a murder mystery (which is simply anticipating the genre will indeed be the genre) and some sort of bloodthirstiness for a body to kick the fiction into gear, but I'm not sure if Ryukishi does.

Oh, that makes more sense than what I first thought when I read your post.

I didn't take Ryukishi's take on that issue as "readers like blood" so much as "readers like puzzles and they don't care that fictional blood needs to be spilled so they can get those puzzles."In which case, that applies to nearly every mystery fan, me included. I mean I sure as hell don't lose my sleep over a murder victim in a mystery book.

I like puzzles and if I'm reading a story that's taking too long to get to the murder, I'm likely to think "please for the love of God get to the murder. Move the damn plot along."

To me, it was more of a confusing moment than anything else. Well yes, I don't mind if a few characters need to die in order for the story to work. And if killing off a few characters gives me a good plot, hey hit me. I want that.

I didn't read it as "you like seeing people in pain" so much as "you don't care about people in pain." He framed that in a very inflammatory way with Bern and the ripping out people's guts and all...which was where I think his point fell flat.

I mean I see what he's saying, but I don't think it's a problem. No, I don't particularly feel bad about knowing that a character is suffering so the plot can move along. That would be silly. No, I don't really respect the characters enough to stop enjoying the story so they can be happy.

[AuraTwilight]

The whole thing, of course, falls flat because there's nothing you can do to effect their fates. Your enjoying the story doesn't make their characters, and if we're going to pull the "Only your reading it makes the tragedy happen" then I can just retort that only finishing the story catches the culprit.

Except Ryukishi didn't give us that last part just so he can call us dicks, apparently.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The whole thing, of course, falls flat because there's nothing you can do to effect their fates. Your enjoying the story doesn't make their characters, and if we're going to pull the "Only your reading it makes the tragedy happen" then I can just retort that only finishing the story catches the culprit.

Except Ryukishi didn't give us that last part just so he can call us dicks, apparently.

Well he did have a Choose Your Own Adventure ending...

[AuraTwilight]

Yea, but that effects no one's fate but Ange's and she's not being murdered.

And we still don't catch any culprit.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The reason I said that is because you misappropriated my statements into something I didn't say. You know from past experience that this makes me lose my temper, so why do it?

That I misappropriated your statements in the first place is your assumption. In this case I was framing how I saw your argument, not trying to turn your argument into something it wasn't (how could I even do that? Your unabridged statements are written right there for anyone to see). I did so in a way that I thought was easy for you to correct if it was wrong. It turns out that it wasn't specific enough and that adding the word "cognitive" made it clearer. Neglecting to add this one word I see as an honest, minor, common, and easily correctable mistake. Insinuating that I am being dishonest in this instance I find to be completely out of proportion and very disrespectful.

And I do not really want an apology. Just respect.

Also, I do not even know what past experience you are talking about where we had an issue about me misappropriating your statements. You will have to refresh my memory.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Because emotionally she's not maturing as a person and is refusing to face her problems. She's letting horrible things happen to her she COULD prevent, but instead she wallows in self-pity and tells herself that the cards are stacked impossibly against her so that she feels better about her own ineptitude. It's called Learned Helplessness.

You could basically write practically the same analysis for Kinzo's situation. Or you could just as easily call Yasu not cognitively sane. The only significant difference that I see between Yasu's and Kinzo's delusions are that one set is "harmless" and the other is "harmful".

Since you seem to think that every example I give depicting escapism negatively is completely invalid, I would like to know what you think a could make for a valid example of depicting escapism negatively.

Originally Posted by Sherringford

And I don't see the problem in presenting the reader with options. Traditional mystery presents the reader with the options of "challenging the riddle intellectually" and "enjoying the ride." Removing the safety net, the detective, from the equation, limits the genre rather than expand it in my opinion.

Sometimes taking away the "safety net" makes it more exiting. To use a similar example, I used to play Diablo II. Sure the normal game was fun, but there was a "hardcore" mode where if your character died you could never play them again. Once I started playing that mode, I could never go back to "softcore"; "hardcore" was just too exiting.

Of course in "softcore" mode you had the option of deleting your character when he died... but only the most disciplined follower of the "hardcore" ideal would actually do this. Similarly, with a detective who will inevitably give you the answer, you can be tempted to rely on him too much and, to inadvertently use an Umineko catch phrase, stop thinking.

Really, it's for those who want the challenge but are not disciplined enough to avert the fallback options when things get tough. I could often enough be placed in this category.

Originally Posted by Renall

The universe does not tell Man how to act; Man realizes how he must act in order to be Man.

So, objectively speaking justice is subjective. Yet, subjectively speaking justice is objective.

...Or something like that.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

If I want to read The Name of the Rose by reading the first chapter and the last ten pages then a select random assortment of pages in the middle, that's completely my right and also a fictional example that I definitely didn't actually do in college because Umberto Eco is an impenetrable dick.

Ehm... probably the book was poorly translated. The Name of the Rose is not such a difficult book to read in Italian... the only exception being that in my edition no one bothered to translate the Latin text... although you can get most of the meaning (Latin and Italian are similar) it's really pretty annoying and I found it a mere exercise in showing off he knew Latin...

However teenagers writing fanfics as of now feel the need to insert in them sentence in other languages even when they don't know those languages at all and have to rely on google translate, and often they too don't bother to put a translation to what they wrote so maybe I'm the only one who dislike this sort of things...

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Sometimes taking away the "safety net" makes it more exiting. To use a similar example, I used to play Diablo II. Sure the normal game was fun, but there was a "hardcore" mode where if your character died you could never play them again. Once I started playing that mode, I could never go back to "softcore"; "hardcore" was just too exiting.

Of course in "softcore" mode you had the option of deleting your character when he died... but only the most disciplined follower of the "hardcore" ideal would actually do this. Similarly, with a detective who will inevitably give you the answer, you can be tempted to rely on him too much and, to inadvertently use an Umineko catch phrase, stop thinking.

Really, it's for those who want the challenge but are not disciplined enough to avert the fallback options when things get tough. I could often enough be placed in this category.

I think the point is that Diablo gave you the chance to chose between the two. Umineko did not.
Many videogame players end up finding the hard level the funniest one, but generally many games often offer an easy one for who's not so expert because the point of making a videogame is to allow to the largest target possible to have fun with it.

Ryukishi, removing the easy game, basically say that he doesn't care about the one who felt the need for it.
Problem is he does it after they bought 8 games.
Sorry, I perceive this as either failing to drive his message home (this is a game in which the solution wouldn't be given) or tricking the ones who bought his game or failing to figure out that there could be readers who needed/wanted the easy level.

In the first case he made a mistake in comunication but well, he's human and it can happen, in the second care there's malicious intent, in the third case there's ignorance about who are the people who're going to buy the game.

Note that removing the 'hard level' wasn't necessary. You could still play it merely by not waiting for the detective to solve the story like you can do in the mystery game in EP 8. You can read all the hints Beato and Battler give you or you can reason it by yourself and find the solution.

According to many interviews he wanted to remove the solution because he didn't want it to be printed in the net or in books.
It's a personal wish, which is likely either tied to 'I want you to read my story and form a judjement on it, not rely on the solution another gave you' or 'if you know the solution you've no need to read the story ergo it'll sell less ergo I'll have a damage'.

The solution being printed out in the web don't damage readers who want to read Umineko without knowing the solution as long as they stay away from spoilers.

To go back to the Umineko theme the idea that Umineko would be better without a solution is subjective, therefore you can find lot of people who don't agree with it.