[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 7 Requiem of the golden witch

[chounokoe]

Thanks Klashi, you gave me another, additionall idea how to put it, so I'm gonna expand on your argument:

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Bernkastel's attitude is a caricature of a reader that does not care about what's going on, yet she cannot be your average umineko reader considering her complete implication in Beato's game. Beato's game is all about Battler's understanding about her tale, and possible what's presented to Lambda and Bern (and of course Featherine and other meta characters like Ange).

Bernkastel could be seen as a reader in that sense, that she 'reads to us'. She is handed the story and handels is presentation, just like a director who is handed a script. That happened everytime in Chiru so far.

So let's take that a step further:
Beatrice is the author of this tale and as in classical theory, she stand for the position of the culprit, because the culprit as well as the author designs the 'events' in the first place.
Battler is the detective figure in her rendition of the story. We acompany him throughout the story and share most of his views and the information he has got. Still we are not him.
From Episode 3 Hachijo Toya takes over and writes the apocryphes...or if you want to put it more casual, unlicensed sequels. She creates further tales by interpreting the tale, but she has understood more than us. She makes a pretty believable copy of the original (pretty much deleting her own presence from that work) but still something is off.
From Episode 5 on we have different narrators in a way, who present the story in a different light than it might have been told by another person. I still wonder wether passages of Episode 6 came off 'wrong' because we were being told via one step more, when Ange read us a story that Featherine/Hachijo wrote about Battler holding a game.

But still none of those people are us, at least for me. They are sides we can pick, but we still have to decide for ourselves.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

...

If you are that concerned about the answer, would it be rather better to discuss it on spoiler/specilation as a whole, instead of putting that opinion based on a theory? I understood clearly that you don't take it as granted, but it seems it is hardly anything that sparked out of nowhere, yet I see little to no relevancy to Episode 7 at all. Again, please read it or wait for a translation before passing such hasty judgment.

I'm also sort of surprised people can expect a fabulous or crap ending without even knowing what will be episode 8 content. I see no problem with wishthinking, but it is sort of alienating to see "near fact-like" opinions regarding the solution, whereas no one has the slightest idea how Ryukishi will execute it. Hell, no one expected Episode 5 going this way.
I never expected the solution to be foolproof, and instead, while I'm trying to rack my brain about a possible "single truth", I would rather split that from my expectations of the ending. I really can't understand people blindly expecting a bad end because of shkanon, or an excellent end because it will be Y or X thing, for example. I wouldn't be surprised regarding an anime series that has a continuity, but Umineko isn't just cut for long term expectations, since Ryukishi has the knack to be totally unpredictable. Therefore, as much as I can see expectations floating around, calling out the end will be "bad" or "good" following a lack of proper lead to that reasoning is what I call "unfair". That reminds me how people were complaining about Episode 5 headlines, and then most of the naysayers changed their train of thought after -reading- it.

As for the "if this is right", it comes from the fact it is basing an overall judgment on a piece of fiction done by person X, but interpreted by person Y, while you are person Z. As hypothetical as it sounds, I just can't see the relevancy of starting some critic despite nothing is disclosed yet, going through several layers of interpretations. Speculation over a theory sounds all nice to me, but speculation over an author intent, basing on something not even factual is... far fetched to say the least.

As for your last point, it seems you are mistaking something: I did not say that "umineko" was flawless whatsoever. My point is that all parts has a relative usefulness, mentioning the parts that were the most criticized. That does not mean the game is void of faults (pacing, number of characters etc).

Now this is my only opinion, but I'm starting to think that the fanbase is confusing 3 aspects of the game: the entertaining factor (presentation, characters, etc), the mystery, and the reasoning behind the later. It seems to me that a lot of people are basing everything on the first 2 points but not the third. I can't sya if i'm correct or wrong, but this is an observation I've considered for a while.

[marebito]

Just my take on the whole mystery-discussion:

While I like to discuss about to which extent Umineko actually is a mystery, it's pretty redundant to wonder whether it's classical mystery or not, since it definitely and obviously is not. The whole premise of Kakera spawning from a cat box made that pretty clear right from the start. Not even the existence of multiple versions of the incident, but the whole suggested fantasy aspect that establishes due to nobody being able to look into the cat box. The suggestion of supernatural entities/phenomena as possible solutions is not that unique though, we had that with Carr and a LOT of Japanese writers (e.g. 二階堂黎人) and there is no end in sight. The only difference is that while sheer text in a usual novel leaves more to the reader's interpretation, in a visual novel we have a cackling witch dancing over an isolated island. However that does not mean the reader's approach concerning that should be fundamently different since he is only acting inside of a cat box.

As for the integration of the Knox- and Dine-rules:
I think the interpretation of ryukishi's way of involving them is a very subjective topic. One would say he mocks them while personally I would say he only challenges/criticizes them, but in general I have the opinion that a work may still fit into a genre concept even when, or sometimes especially when, it points out certain aspects of the genre that are questionable and challenges them (e.g. 麻耶雄嵩). But I like various conceptions of and within the whole genre and I like to read both totally orthodox mysteries and modern ones.

Japanese scholars are discussing this since the late 80's in particular and to a huge extent with a lot of secondary literature being published on the whole topic. So it is already happening sufficiently outside of Umineko's context, which is why this discussion does not really fit into a thread about EP7, even if I'm commenting myself. If at all there might be a seperate thread created for that, but I doubt that will happen and I'm not requesting it either, we can discuss this elsewhere if we really want to.

As for why ryukishi did not write a 'casual' mystery novel:
I think we clearly see from his decision to still publish his works as doujin products first shows how he loves the 'otaku' community himself, but being one of those does not mean one can not have other interests as well and integrate them into a medium common for otaku. Not to mention that mystery and popular/otaku culture are eminently influencing each other since the late 90's and even more so since the 00's. Well, before it was mainly younger writers with otaku-background influencing the literary genre but as we see Umineko now also does it the other way around and I'm curious about how this will develop in the future.

[UsagiTenpura]

The thing is that said idea could be equally applied to any arc and it wouldn't change my opinion of Ryukishi should it happen to be true for any of them. It doesn't specifically concerns arc 7.

I know the sort of expectations I have, seeing other stories outside of Umineko that he made I think it's a fair reason by itself to believe I'm not going to be satisfied by the answer. Personally I loved Umineko more and more every arc until arc 5, which was the peak. Arc 6 is not an arc I hated but I really didn't like it nearly as much. I am not however claiming arc 6 is inherently bad or worst then any other arcs, because that's just people's opinions. I still think it made a great story (and an awesome disc cover lol) but nothing quite what I received in former arcs. I never really know what expectations I have toward anything, I said that in a way Umineko's self-created expectations weren't anything that incredible. The main premise the author established is that we shouldn't accept the story is fantasy. As long as the story isn't fantasy he won't have broken his deal (unless something like the earlier theory is right). That's the only real expectations I think we can have toward the final answers.

I don't think I'm not going to like the final answer because it includes element X or Y, but because I feel so many different opinions and expectations are clashing about it that I'd be really a fool to assume my own expectations, however vague and unprecise they are, will be the right ones.

When a story creates sorta converging expectations it's far easier to think your expectations are right. This isn't the case for Umineko where gradually everyone's opinions ends up more polarized about a ton of elements within the story.

Expectations I have are things like "if Shkanon is true then the real truth about it is more satisfying or complete then any fan theories about it so far, even if some of them are things I really like".
Expectations I don't have are things like "Shkanon can't be true cause there's no way it can be satisfying". However I guess I do have some of these expectations, for instance I think stackable room theories, meta tape and deathproof over furniture death are things that would make Umineko some that range from conceptually absurd to just really cheap "tricks" from his side.
Expectations are lost are really simple. That he'll live up to my expectations.

A very simple example I feel is Olivier's point about the submarine picture. To him it was very easy to make something better. Seeing as Ryukishi's knowledge about submarine seems to be the real thing thanks to his technical knowledge of them, the fact that the submarine picture absolutely cannot be the a picture of a type of italian submarine from that time seems it could hint that this scene was wrong.

The opposite of that is the idea that "well Ryukishi just wanted a cave with a sub in it, there's no points in looking into it that much".

And that exactly resumes how my expectations lowered. "There's no points in looking into it that much".

[Smeckledorf]

I am 50/50 on Bern's truth. If she means to say that the adults all try to kill each other then she may be right, but obviously Kyrie and Rudolph can't be the main murderers every game.
As for people who can't believe Kyrie would say what she did about Ange... she pretty much said the same thing in episode 3; Kyrie said that if her child was not stillborn then Asumu would not have stolen Rudolph. Furthermore, pieces cannot act in ways that they are incapable of.
From what we know about Battler, he would not tell Ange that her family is filled with murderers. So, if that was the truth then he would lie.
The real problem is that we are pitting Bern's truth against Beatrice's games. Beatrice's games usually had more of a plan attached to it. This truth has no locked room murders unlike almost all of the past games.

[Helmet-kun]

About that cheese riddle..

You guys do know that it's also possible to solve with two slices, right?

Anyways, I'm not expecting a flawless ending or anything- heck, are we even sure Ep8 will reveal all the answers? Remember EP8 is Battler's truth- the happy ending in contrast to Bern's bad end. It will feel more acceptable, because his answer would have love- but that doesn't necessarily dictate that it is the right answer.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yeah but, as Will said, the "right answer" should work when the theories click into it. We wouldn't need the blue if that were so. So it's a fair question whether that's because something is a failing or some other reason I'm not too sure of.

The blue's an obvious crutch used to point out theories that Ryukishi wants to put out there in order to have the plot progress. It's not something to help us, it's a plot device.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Helmet-kun

About that cheese riddle..

You guys do know that it's also possible to solve with two slices, right?

Anyways, I'm not expecting a flawless ending or anything- heck, are we even sure Ep8 will reveal all the answers? Remember EP8 is Battler's truth- the happy ending in contrast to Bern's bad end. It will feel more acceptable, because his answer would have love- but that doesn't necessarily dictate that it is the right answer.

I believe Bern is going to be the gamemaster for episode 8; however, I would not doubt that she would want Battler to be gamemaster. Battler's truth is not necessarily one with a happy ending, it is one spun with love in contrast to Bern's which is spun with greed and malice. There is a chance of a happy ending, but much more likely I think Battler will show us a good reason as to why everyone died.

[Used Can]

You know, I've been thinking. EP7 would lead us to believe that Yasu's motive to kill everyone is Battler's broke promise alone. However, if we follow the story, by 1984 Yasu doesn't seem to harbour any ill feelings towards anyone, nor does she seem to be planning to kill anyone.

Then, on November 29th of that year she solved Kinzo's epitaph. However, the gold is not the only thing she found out, but the fact she's Kinzo's daughter and an inbred. She also learned the name Kinzo planed to give her was Lyon. In addition, as seen in Lyon's flashback, there seems to be an issue with Yasu's body, which, according to herself, makes her unable to love, thus she referred to herself as not human, but furniture. During this scene Yasu seemed, if not angry, very, very frustrated, to the point she asked Genji and Nanjo why didn't they let her die. Now, this seems to be a very important scene, but is this the sole reason why she planned this whole game?

She said that, had Battler returned one year before or one year later, this whole tragedy would never have taken place. Some people have theorised that this may refer to the promise, and Shannon's relationship with George. In 1985, Shannon's and George relationship wasn't that solid, by 1987 they'd probably be in a steady relationship. However, this would mean that the promise was the single reason why this tragedy happen, and as I've tried to point out in this post, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Now, what could have happened, between the time Yasu solved the Epitaph and the conference of 1986 that made this whole tragedy unfold?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Used Can

She said that, had Battler returned one year before or one year later, this whole tragedy would never have taken place. Some people have theorised that this may refer to the promise, and Shannon's relationship with George. In 1985, Shannon's and George relationship wasn't that solid, by 1987 they'd probably be in a steady relationship. However, this would mean that the promise was the single reason why this tragedy happen, and as I've tried to point out in this post, that doesn't seem to be the case.

There is a reason why there was a question over whether or not this motive was worth it. If what we saw about Yatsu was true... then I think it would be safe to assume that Yatsu is a class A lunatic.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

There is a reason why there was a question over whether or not this motive was worth it. If what we saw about Yatsu was true... then I think it would be safe to assume that Yatsu is a class A lunatic.

The thing is that what we've seen about Yasu doesn't have to be false.

However, her motive was never clearly stated. She even refused to answer when Eva (I believe) asked what her purpose was. Of course, even if her motive was Battler's broken promise, she'd probably wouldn't have told Eva. But, either way, her motives remain unclear, even if there are clues to lead us to certain modes of thinking.

Also, something I forgot to mention in the previous post was Yasu's behaviour during EP7's Tea Party. It was really odd. Her behaviour was completely cold during that scene. She looked emotionless, or even perhaps depressed.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Used Can

You know, I've been thinking. EP7 would lead us to believe that Yasu's motive to kill everyone is Battler's broke promise alone. However, if we follow the story, by 1984 Yasu doesn't seem to harbour any ill feelings towards anyone, nor does she seem to be planning to kill anyone.

Correct.

Then, on November 29th of that year she solved Kinzo's epitaph. However, the gold is not the only thing she found out, but the fact she's Kinzo's daughter and an inbred. She also learned the name Kinzo planed to give her was Lyon. In addition, as seen in Lyon's flashback, there seems to be an issue with Yasu's body, which, according to herself, makes her unable to love, thus she referred to herself as not human, but furniture. During this scene Yasu seemed, if not angry, very, very frustrated, to the point she asked Genji and Nanjo why didn't they let her die. Now, this seems to be a very important scene, but is this the sole reason why she planned this whole game?

The main motive behind YasuShannontrice's actions can be tied to a desire for love based on that scene, which makes sense, given the nature of the Love Trial in Episode 6.

Battler's pitying look when Erika dismissed it as fluff was a pretty large indication of it's relevance to the plot.

She said that, had Battler returned one year before or one year later, this whole tragedy would never have taken place. Some people have theorised that this may refer to the promise, and Shannon's relationship with George. In 1985, Shannon's and George relationship wasn't that solid, by 1987 they'd probably be in a steady relationship. However, this would mean that the promise was the single reason why this tragedy happen, and as I've tried to point out in this post, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Now, what could have happened, between the time Yasu solved the Epitaph and the conference of 1986 that made this whole tragedy unfold?

Once again, it comes back down to Yasu-Beato not being the culprit, but being aware of it beforehand.

As I've said before, the following points make Yasu's forewarning of the tragedy clear:

1) The preparation of the money cards several days beforehand, and set up so as to arrive at their target destinations some time after the massacre at Rokkenjimma had occurred.

2) At least one of the message bottles being prepared beforehand, based on the timeline. If we accept that Yasu is the Beatrice discussed in Maria's notebook, and the one who wrote that passage in it, then this becomes obvious.

With that established, we need to figure out why there's two separate stories prepared beforehand of the same incident, and why not just one clear testimony of what exactly will take place. That's also simple: It's a dying message meant to act as testimony of who the true culprit is, without knowing exactly what will happen beforehand. Based on the assumption that there will be no survivors, including Yasu-Beato herself. Therefore, in order to understand what exactly those two message bottles are trying to say, we need to look at what they have in common, and therefore deduce that those are the set in stone details of what was to happen during the family conference:

3) The family arrives, Battler is to return. Maria finds a sickly-looking rose and George marks it for her. Maria is in the rose garden alone after this and is given a letter by "Beatrice".

4) The fact that the murders seem to follow the Epitaph. And specifically the deaths of Shannon and Kanon being done in uncomfirmable, possibly magical, ways. In Episode 2, Beatrice is shown to kill both Kanon and Shannon directly. This is not done for any other characters with the possible exception of Battler at the end in those two Episodes.

5) Beatrice clearly indicated that regardless of how things went down that night, that she intended to kill both Shannon and Kanon. If we also apply Shkannontrice to this fact, then this takes on an entirely new significance.

6) Beatrice clearly considered Kanon and Shannon to be enemies that needed to be eliminated. Why? In Episode 2, it's hinted to be over Shannon's relationship with George. And something similar to Kanon with his situation with Jessica.

So we understand that Beatrice (and at this point, also Yasu, the main personality) considered that Shannon and Kanon need to be eliminated. That is an absolute certainty. So why? Why do that? We understand that Yasu seems to not be the type of person that would wantonly commit murder. On the other hand, it's been strongly indicated that at the very least George and Kyrie are. We can dismiss the possibility of Kyrie being the true culprit because, frankly, why would Kyrie tell YasuShannontrice about her plot beforehand?

7) A mere gun rampage is too simple to necessitate the elaborate run up to the murders shown in each game up until now. The idea that this was an off the cuff massacre also doesn't make sense, given the obvious level of foresight Yasu-Beato has of the situation. Hence the preparation of the cash cards and possibly the message bottles.

8) Therefore, Yasu-Beato had a means of being informed of this beforehand, but for whatever reason, was not in a position to do anything to stop it.

I'm presuming it's because of a personal relationship between her and the true culprit. If we assume that to be George, and with the knowledge that she will be proposed to during the conference as Shannon, then a fear of losing that "one shot at love" would paralyze her into not moving against George. It's very often that folks do not wish to turn their loved ones over to the justice system, despite their crimes. Sometimes love overwhelms morality.

9) If Shannon were preventing Yasu from doing anything overt, then her inaction makes sense. Shannon has been shown to be willing to kill in relatively cold blood in the Love Trial. Yasu-Beato was shown to need both a justification to even pick out a target (an "enemy" of Battler) and lacked the resolve to kill in the first place.

10) Yasu is the Beato during that timeline. Therefore, Chick Beato is a representation of Yasu before the "thousand years", which we are aware refers to that six year gap. Chick Beato is a reflection of Yasu's true self, and feelings for Battler in that regard.

But Yasu does intend to kill Shannon and Kanon, as shown in Episodes 1 and 2. The only reason for this is due to a disagreement with what they were trying to do. Why take such an extreme route as killing a personality? Well, acting to stop a murder seems like as good a reason as any.

11) Yasu-Beato still has strong feelings for Battler. This continued affection is made clear both in Battler's role in her Message Bottle stories, as well as the fact that half the code for the money cards is Battler's Birthday. And apparently the other half is the day Yasu solved the Epitaph?

Actually, if that's the case, and since Yasu isn't aware of her own true birthday, then it would make sense to consider that day to be her true birthday, as "Beatrice". So if that were true, that means that code, and by extension, those numbers on that door....

Are a creepy kind of post-mortem declaration of Beato(Yasu)xBattler?

12) If that's the case, Yasu's own motivation for rebelling, can be summed up as a continued affection and love for Battler.

But that still doesn't address the true culprit, which based on this line of reasoning, can only be either Jessica or George. But it does explain a lot of the "howdunnit".

[Judoh]

It seems to be implied with all the "Demon King talk" in episode 6 that George is in control of Gaap somehow. So does that mean he's behind a lot of Yasu's disappearing items? Or that he gave the person representing Gaap the idea to do that?

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Judoh

It seems to be implied with all the Demon King talk in episode 6 that George is in control of Gaap. So does that mean he's behind a lot of Yasu's disappearing items? Or he gave the person representing Gaap the idea to do that?

About as much as Jessica would be in charge of Ronove then. I think that's just a cool pairing Ryukishi came up with and then decided to run with. To be fair it really does work well.

And I think that the way Gaap refers to George as the "Demon King" is indication of how he can be extremely cold blooded.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

Then why did he shoot Natsuhi in the end and why was she making the remark that she was doubting her opponents existence up to this moment and can still not believe it completely even now?!
If her opponent was Krauss and she knew, her reaction would be different.
If her opponent was Krauss and she didn't know, her reaction would be different.
Why was she so voluntary to shoot her opponent? She was shown to be a loving wife and mother on many occassions, so why should she shoot her husband?

Her opponent has to be someone whose existence in said form she did not expect to appear and whom she has no trouble shooting because her personal relationship is weaker than the danger he or she poses.

Krauss was cheating on Natsuhi with his maid, and had convinced Shannon to assist him because he is a dominating physical and social presence and she is a young girl. Shannon dressed up as Beatrice to distract Natsuhi and Krauss shot her to get her out of the way because their marriage has always been strained and she seemed to be waffling when he showed her the gold so he knew he couldn't trust her. Natsuhi is pure and faithful, but Krauss was never said to be.

There is basically nothing that can disprove this as a valid solution to ep1. I think that's Will Wright's objection.

Changing Tacks...

Does the Japanese actually use the expression "immaculate conception" when Maria is discussing her father with Will? Because while I totally understand why Ryukishi would get this wrong, Maria shouldn't.

In Catholic tradition, immaculate conception refers to the birth of Mary without Original Sin. Mary definitely had a human father. Being born the child of God without an actual biological father is virgin birth or incarnation. The irony is that Maria is technically correct in saying her namesake takes after immaculate conception, as that's true, but it's incorrect for the theme she is trying to express when talking about her lack of a father. She is clearly comparing herself to Jesus (by the way, "Yeshua" and "Yoshiya" are remarkably similar; confusing it pre-translation as "Joshua" is telling, because "Joshua" derives from the same name as Jesus).

In defense of Maria's character, I have to think this is an author error because I'm quite certain Maria would know the difference between immaculate conception and virgin birth, and would be able to lecture Will at length on it. Though calling Rosa a virgin... aheh.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

In defense of Maria's character, I have to think this is an author error because I'm quite certain Maria would know the difference between immaculate conception and virgin birth, and would be able to lecture Will at length on it. Though calling Rosa a virgin... aheh.

Isn't it clearly indicated in that scene that Maria has a predetermined amount of information to discuss before bailing on Will? That impression would simply be the one that was intended to be given to Will.

We may be able to trust the facts of the testimonies themselves, but we need to be aware that they are obviously not in proper context, much like Ryukishi's uses of the red Truth often are.

[Renall]

Well, there'd be no point to that getting mixed up, I mean. Maria would definitely know obscure Catholic mysticism, no questions, especially if it were something that interested her. So if nothing else, she's have gotten the right term, and if Will tried to correct her or mentioned immaculate conception, she would have gleefully told him how wrong he was.

I agree with you that such a tangent would have served little purpose to the point, but Maria would've just said the right thing to begin with. Again, I think he just didn't know and I don't really expect him to as the author because I'm Catholic and I didn't know that for years and years.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, there'd be no point to that getting mixed up, I mean. Maria would definitely know obscure Catholic mysticism, no questions, especially if it were something that interested her. So if nothing else, she's have gotten the right term, and if Will tried to correct her or mentioned immaculate conception, she would have gleefully told him how wrong he was.

I agree with you that such a tangent would have served little purpose to the point, but Maria would've just said the right thing to begin with. Again, I think he just didn't know and I don't really expect him to as the author because I'm Catholic and I didn't know that for years and years.

It could have just been "lost in translation" as it were. Meh, probably not a big deal.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Renall

In defense of Maria's character, I have to think this is an author error because I'm quite certain Maria would know the difference between immaculate conception and virgin birth, and would be able to lecture Will at length on it. Though calling Rosa a virgin... aheh.

That might turn out to be an error in my notes.

[Renall]

I'll blame those Byzantines and their wacky Orthodoxy and give ryukishi and Maria a pass on this one, then.