2011-03-06, 19:00 | Link #22221 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
The phrase is "without love it cannot be seen" and there's the maxim "seeing is beleiving".
In the past we used this line to avoid criticism when our logic had holes in it thinking that author would fill them in. Of course not realizing that the author wanted us to fill those holes in for him. Lacking love is not a valid criticism anymore. If one can't see what the author intended than it's not because he doesn't understand, but because the author did a bad job at getting him to understand it. That's my deep thought of the day anyway.
__________________
|
2011-03-06, 19:06 | Link #22222 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Not literally dead, I mean. Quote:
If love == no, then not x is not logically equivalent to if love == yes, then x. Nor to if x, then love == yes. That's my deep thought of the day. Quote:
I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually mean anything.
__________________
|
|||
2011-03-06, 19:40 | Link #22223 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Quote:
(From Bern's letter btw) |
|
2011-03-06, 23:59 | Link #22224 | ||||||
Thought Being
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I believe the problem you're finding is a result of you trying to apply a black and white perspective on whether the meta-world is a positive or negative thing. First off, as a side note, I think the end result of believing in the meta-world is that death doesn't actually matter so much anymore. There is still the thoughts and emotions to take into account, but I'm going to put those aside to explain my point. Through the endless, multi-Fragment nature of the meta-world, people will keep existing. It’s not a permanent loss as in the real world. It's true that people have the ability to misuse the 'power' they have on this realm. But if you notice, Ryuukishi always makes a point of showing that these ways of using the meta-world is 'morally wrong', and highlights the cruelty of it. For example, Battler gets very upset at Beato for enjoying EVA-Beatrice's display. Beato even spends the next little while repenting for her actions, helps people AND the climax of the game is stopping EVA-Beatrice because of her cruelty. For MARIA in EP4, it’s true she’s being cruel, but don’t forget that Beatrice is simply giving her an outlet for the deep emotional damage she has sustained. And it’s a much better outlet then having Maria lash out against her mother in the ‘normal’ world, possibly destroying their relationship forever. She even comes out of it and retains a relatively healthy relationship with her mother afterwards (as we know that the events of the arcs are ‘after’ Sakutarou has been killed). Though, even here, Beatrice laments the fact that this is the only way for Maria to be satisfied. If anything, don’t look at it as good and bad, but rather why it is happening. Remember, motive and ‘the heart’ is key. I think just about anytime someone does something ‘cruel’ in the meta-world, you can always understand or are given reasons why they act how they do. A big part of Umineko is highlighting the flaws people have and showing the need to overcome these. Having the meta-world be real doesn’t change that this is a part of Umineko, rather it makes it that this growth actually happens. Things aren’t just left at the real world ‘fact’ that everyone in the family is a terrible person. This would be another reason I fight so strongly for this theory. Quote:
The second part is just a story detail, something like that Beatrice realized she didn’t want to win that way. But I don’t want to confuse things and get into plot details like this. Quote:
Quote:
Again, I’m not trying to downplay the cruelty of what Beatrice did. I’m just trying to make my point. There is still much to be said about the despair, sadness and anger people feel when their family is killed. But that’s a different discussion from the higher level happenings. I actually think it’s really interesting how Umineko has enough ‘depth’ that you basically need to zoom in and out your perspective on different things to talk about everything that happens. It’s almost impossible to have one conversation that’s taking everything into account all at once. Something else that’s interesting is that believing all of this is real doesn’t need to interfere with the actual mystery at all. Rather, as EP3 describes, it can exist in parallel with the real world. In EP3, we can talk about the ‘real’ killer and the method, the red truth, et cetera, while simultaneously being able to discuss why EVA-Beatrice did what she did, her motives, et cetera. This is the beauty of how Ryuukishi has presented Umineko, and I feel like many people that don’t agree with me disregard these different sides. It feels like the whole meta-world side of the discussion is left at whether or not it is included within the fiction and left unexplored. I feel that that is a shame. If you open your mind to the possibility of the meta-world being real, there are many, many avenues of the story to explore. And I can’t think of anything that needs to be discarded, it can all be examined equally.
__________________
Last edited by Keriaku; 2011-03-07 at 00:32. |
||||||
2011-03-07, 00:10 | Link #22225 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Well I think the question becomes is really "with love" the right way to look at the world.
If it's just about seeing stuff I could even say: "Without LSD it can't be seen". No one can debate that. It is interesting to note that there is a widespread agreement that "love is blind", in most cases it's true. If you think s/he's the most beautiful woman/man in the world there's something wrong with your eyes or your mind. Love is great, I'm not arguing that, but it's definitely not the right way to see the world for what it is. I have no obligation to love Ryuukishi's story and characters. I'll love his story and their characters if he can make me love them. That's what he must do. If I don't love them, that's his fault not mine. Well maybe it's not his fault, it's not like he can make his story liked by everyone, but that's certainly what an author should strive for and certainly no one can expect a reader to love a story and their characters a priori.
__________________
|
2011-03-07, 00:16 | Link #22226 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
It's like a school kid going "well you have a good point but YOU ARE UGLY SO THERE. YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID." Say that there was no culture telling people that being willingly delusional was an idiotic thing to do. Then kids would grow up going "I have an imaginary friend named Bozco!" and hearing "YOU KNOW BOZCO?" in response. Dwelling in fantasy is not healthy. You can argue about subjective truths all you want, but from a medical and psychological point of view, it is objectively not healthy. Ryuukishi's theme is really, really childish once you stop to think about it. Which goes back to the discussion of truth=good lies=bad from a couple pages ago. Also, Yasu didn't improve herself, unless you think going from heartbroken to in-love-with-three-cousins-and-sort-of-cheating-on-them-while-pretending-to-be-three-different-people is an improvement. Yasu solved the problem of being heartbroken by creating an alternative personality. You may argue semantics and whether she did it consciously or just went crazy, but you can't say that creating another person to deal with being heartbroken is a good thing. That's idiotic. We've all been there. There are three ways to solve it. You go drink with friends, you go drink with friends, or you just suck it up and deal with it like everyone else in the planet. Yasu chose the mysterious fourth option of "creating another person to deal with that." So to sum up, I disagree with magic being a good thing. It's unhealthy. |
|
2011-03-07, 00:45 | Link #22227 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-03-07, 02:04 | Link #22228 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2011-03-07, 03:31 | Link #22229 | |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
I kinda admire people like Sherringford. Their way of thinking allows them suck everything the world throws at them and stay up for another round or two. It's one form of strength.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-03-07, 06:55 | Link #22230 | |
Thought Being
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
|
Quote:
With Umineko, Ryuukishi has shown that he is completely aware that it is a 100%, inevitable, part of the human condition that people interpret things their own way the second the information hits their senses. That's why he coined a phrase such as this. Remember, 'understanding' Beatrice and such is a main point in the story, but the message goes way beyond that.
__________________
Last edited by Keriaku; 2011-03-07 at 07:19. |
|
2011-03-07, 08:27 | Link #22231 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
I don't really think that "love" or any emotion can get you closer to the "truth", it's always the opposite. But it's all right because in umineko "the truth is not that important". The only thing that matters is the illusion you see once you outright deny the truth in order to envision a better world.
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2011-03-07 at 08:40. |
|
2011-03-07, 10:31 | Link #22232 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
It's different for relationships between people however.
__________________
|
|
2011-03-07, 11:02 | Link #22233 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let's take a look at Maria. Her mother is a terrible, terrible mother. She sees her as great because she loves her so much. That...isn't seeing the truth. That is deluding yourself. Love does that to a lot of people. Never heard the saying "Love is blind?" |
||
2011-03-07, 11:40 | Link #22235 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Quote:
I feel a bit sad that some people still think that Rosa has no love for her daughter at all. Rosa is a well-written character, believable and multi-dimension. Actually I feel the same for most in that fucked up family. They're all horrible, horrible jerks, but they're capable of loving and understandable at some point. Ryukishi is capable of writing some interesting female characters. Quote:
|
||
2011-03-07, 11:56 | Link #22236 | |
Thought Being
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
|
Quote:
I don't disregard the Author Theory as a whole, but I disagree with any advocates of it that say all the different sides we see of the people involved is 'fictional' and therefore meaningless. My belief is that the series is showing real sides of the people invovled, more than just a set of imagined reconstructions of them. I think that is one of my core contentions with the author theory within it's most basic propositions.
__________________
|
|
2011-03-07, 12:10 | Link #22237 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
You will not find a single Author Theory advocate who believes the fictional nature of much of the characterization renders the narrative meaningless. In fact, many will tell you that Erika, essentially a wholly fictional character, nevertheless has meaningful impact on her development and the development of those she interacts with. However, the fictionalization of the characters allows them to be trended to extremes. I think Rosa is a particular victim of this. In ep5 especially, she is portrayed as acting in the interests of Maria in a manner which Maria is too young to understand. On the surface she appears to be ignoring and betraying Maria (as she does in, say, ep4); in reality the matter may have been considerably more complicated. Maria's diary is a poor source for this, because Maria is nine. A nine-year-old doesn't easily understand how a parent could break a promise and still be acting in their child's best interest. There's enough evidence about Rosa to go either way, but most likely, they're both closer than you'd figure.
__________________
|
|
2011-03-07, 12:15 | Link #22238 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
People who do that aren't representing the intention of the theory. That is to explain the growth in many of the characters without the existence of time loops. Since the premise that time loops exists implies Beatrice has some sort of time magic ability as well as how Ryukishi said he was going to do things different this time.
__________________
|
2011-03-07, 12:15 | Link #22239 |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Sorry but yeah, from what I see you disregard nearly everything. You claim that every world is "real" while in actuality you disregard every single "world", both their fantasy and their mystery aspects, as well as Rokkenjima prime, and all their outcomes (since they all end badly) for the sole "world" that is the Meta world. It doesn't matter if you were slaughtered a thousand times in "stories" and in the "real world" because you find some happiness in the Meta World, that's what you propose, and that is discarding over 95% of the serie.
Not to say that the serie had characters specially have conversations about how happiness isn't something we should find in another world. The main conversation over that is even spoken by Shannon and Kanon too, so Yasu. If as you propose every world is real then every world's outcome is also real. Think of it with Higurashi. If every "arcs" of Higurashi is "real" then it means that even tho in the final arc Rika got a good ending, she still got a bad ending in countless worlds. These worlds would all be as "real" as the one where she got her happy ending. So the story really ended horribly like over 99% of the time. The bad endings of previous arcs aren't erased by the emergence of a new arc. The worst of it tho, is that the case you propose is not even in a "different possibility of a world" but altogether in another world that is pretty much an afterlife. Perhaps the love (making blind) is the reason why you disregard most of what occurs in the serie? What you said is why I don't get how come people have troubles with the moral aspects of the serie. Isn't it basically a very normal aim for a story? That the readers end up understanding the thoughts and emotions that lead a criminal to being one, doesn't imply that we have to agree with these decisions. It should even be preferable that the reader constanty is aware of the "wrongdoings" of antagonists while still understanding them. |
2011-03-07, 12:21 | Link #22240 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|