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

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Renall

I don't think you're getting the point they're making at all. You can't hide behind genre as an excuse for why bad writing decisions are made. But I don't even think that's what's going on, as I don't think he's simply writing to genre conventions. I also know for a fact that he's far more versed in classical and western mystery than mere lip service. And I think he's very explicitly manipulating conventions from all of them.

And I think you misunderstood me in that part. I'm not implying that Umineko is 本格推理 at all, meaning a classical detective mystery, which is only following the rules of that genre. Of course it shows that Ryukishi is playing with genre borders and rules, so don't get me wrong there.
What I wanted to say is, that everybody seems so convinced by now, that things cannot be true, because they aren't nice and sweet and show the characters in a bad light, when there is still a murder-mystery part to that whole story, which just needs sinfull people who have actuall problems, which cause such a tragedy.

Mixing romance into the equation is actually one of the points where he is making this a modern approach towards the genre. It is even the point where Will is bound to at least stumble, because

Originally Posted by Van Dine Rule #3

There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

Love is of course actually what makes this mystery so difficult, because our own idealistic goals are interfering with the deduction. This is what I meant when I said that sometimes love can come in the way of deduction and why people should at look some things more rationally.

Yes, Ryukishi is twisting and he is providing two possible pathes to a solution. I even hope that he won't pick a definitive one in the end, but leave it up to the reader to decide which one he wants to take. But still if there is an anti-mystery solution there should be an anti-fantasy one as well.

Originally Posted by Renall

Uh, you seem to be the only one who thinks that.

Apparently you have a very narrow understanding of what could constitute a happy ending. Oliver's talk of ideals actually provides a way in which everyone could die and the ending could still be "happy."

His idea might hold such a way in it's core, but as Oliver puts it, it appears like he wants a happy end where nobody is guilty of any crime and everything was just a sad connection of incidents with no voluntary acts leading to the tragedy at all...which would, I think, dissappoint everybody looking at it from the mystery point of view.

[Helmet-kun]

Originally Posted by Renall

People aren't stupid, but everybody's brains work differently.

I'm not saying anyone is. In fact, that's the very reason why we're having a hard time.

We aren't Battler, and we sure as hell don't think like him.

We aren't Kinzo...I think.

We aren't Eva, Erika, or Rosa.

The fact is R07 can't come up with a character that thinks like us is because we all think too differently. Some accept Battler's perspective, most of us don't. Some accept Erika's perspective, some don't. Hell, some of us are doubt the red truth- and god knows how bad a Liar's Paradox it would be if it was.

In short, R07 is still a writer, and like all writers, we expect him to grow. But as his readers, we're expected to make sure he knows his flaws and make sure that he doesn't make the same mistakes.

[Renall]

I think the purpose of Battler, Erika, Ange, and Will is to show different methods of thinking as the reader.

Battler is idealist above all. He wants to believe in the nobility of all characters. He will not look for the easiest culprit. But he won't readily accept any culprit, which leaves him stalled.

Erika just wants an answer. If it fits all the facts and the red, it works. It's true because it works. The end.

Ange thinks she already has the answer, and is looking for things that back it up as she goes. She's cynical and her hope is worn to the quick. If something upends what she assumed was true, she gets upset.

Will wants the right answer, and he's willing to work to get it. But when things get complicated, he starts to get frustrated. When he gets frustrated, he gets upset, and he starts railing against the inherent unfairness and injustice of a story about ritual murders.

Sure, none of them are probably you. But I think he's aware that people read differently and trying to get at the truth with all of them. Maybe.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

Apparently you have a very narrow understanding of what could constitute a happy ending. Oliver's talk of ideals actually provides a way in which everyone could die and the ending could still be "happy."

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I quite likely am, but the definition you guys hold of a happy ending is that everyone dies, but no one was dirty. If that's how it is, then I indeed misunderstood when I called it a Disney end, but I still believe the view on love is flawed. But, all the same, it's just my personal take on it.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I quite likely am, but the definition you guys hold of a happy ending is that everyone dies, but no one was dirty. If that's how it is, then I indeed misunderstood when I called it a Disney end, but I still believe the view on love is flawed. But, all the same, it's just my personal take on it.

No, you're just making that up in your head. No one has proposed that.

Of course there's a culprit, and of course they aren't a good person. They could even succeed (at least in part). The important thing is whether everyone else maintains their nobility, and whether truth wins out over cynicism. Battler said it wasn't a sad story. He didn't say it was a happy story. But not-sad can lead to an abundance of variations on "happy" endings. It may be left to the reader how well they think of it.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

The important thing is whether everyone else maintains their nobility, and whether truth wins out over cynicism. Battler said it wasn't a sad story.

One question, what is your definition of nobility (at the very least in this case)? That they don't kill people? Because, at the very least, most of the adults have their good share of dubious past deeds.

Anyway, your good end comes down to there being one bad guy, whereas the rest are good guys? Fair enough.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Used Can

One question, what is your definition of nobility (at the very least in this case)? That they don't kill people? Because, at the very least, most of the adults have their good share of dubious past deeds.

Anyway, your good end comes down to there being one bad guy, whereas the rest are good guys? Fair enough.

They're not great people. That's why behaving with nobility in the face of someone who is genuinely evil is so important to their characters, especially if they don't survive. Redemption and all that stuff.

Look at Eva in this episode. She's obviously done bad things. But she comes out of it looking pretty heroic. You can easily still criticize her behavior, and it's warranted. But she has done something to at least try to redeem herself.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Renall

Of course there's a culprit, and of course they aren't a good person. They could even succeed (at least in part). The important thing is whether everyone else maintains their nobility, and whether truth wins out over cynicism.

But well, it's exactly that where I would start criticising the story already if it went down that path. Because I already found it highly unlikely in Matsuribayashi, how basically everyone was a good guy, only sometimes led astray by one, terrible and evil mind. Of course I don't know by a 100% what your concept of maintaining nobility is, but if it means that basically everybody except the 100% evil culprit is 100% noble, than we have different wishes for the end of the story.

I personally want it to end like we were said it ended (because otherwise we would be unable to draw a conclusion) with only Eva and Ange alive, but them finally being able to become happy. Maybe Eva telling the truth about the events on the island to Ange (destroying the cat box) and Ange deciding to love everybody equally and living on her live...maybe even crushing whatever conspiracy Kasumi and Okonogi are planning.

There can be one single culprit of course, but as we saw over various Episodes, he is not the only one (whoever he or she is) with hidden agendas and thus not the only one at fault.
I think, if I'm right with my personal concept of Umineko, it is not truth which wins over cynism (as you call it), but love which makes truth bearable.

EDIT: Okay so I see your definition of nobility, but why has there to be someone who is genuinely evil?!

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

They're not great people. That's why behaving with nobility in the face of someone who is genuinely evil is so important to their characters, especially if they don't survive. Redemption and all that stuff.

Look at Eva in this episode. She's obviously done bad things. But she comes out of it looking pretty heroic. You can easily still criticize her behavior, and it's warranted. But she has done something to at least try to redeem herself.

But isn't that what we got in EP7's Tea Party then? If we accept that Eva and Hideyoshi killing Krauss and Natsuhi were mere accidents then the only genuine villains were Rudolph and Kyrie. Rosa, as far as it seemed to me, was not going to kill anyone. She simply wanted Eva to turn herself to the police, because she didn't want to blow up the gold. Beatrice... I'll apologise for this, but I still don't really understand her, so I'll skip her. The rest of the characters seemed pretty much innocent.

[Renall]

The main problem there is that the "evil people" were basically evil for no particularly good reason. Kyrie's always been sinister, but then she's like "WOOP TIME TO MURDER."

I'm still hoping somebody has a good reason. They could be misguided, but I don't want a culprit who is reluctant. The reason can make sense, as long as it's something that can be called reprehensible. Wishy-washy stuff is weaksauce.

Other people don't need to be "innocent," as long as they take some sort of step toward redeeming behavior. Rosa in ep2 is a good example of this. She's still a bad mother, but she started to realize that.

EDIT: "Bearable truth" is fine, it's just that with love, you can understand that people weren't all bad despite their faults. The "facts" and "truth" are that Rosa was a bad mother and Maria resented her. But they had happy points too. The important thing is that it come to light.

The "facts" as pertain to the ep7 Tea Party seem incomplete, Kyrie's motive being the weakest link there. The story could still be true, but elements are missing.

[Helmet-kun]

Originally Posted by Renall

I think the purpose of Battler, Erika, Ange, and Will is to show different methods of thinking as the reader.

Battler is idealist above all. He wants to believe in the nobility of all characters. He will not look for the easiest culprit. But he won't readily accept any culprit, which leaves him stalled.

Erika just wants an answer. If it fits all the facts and the red, it works. It's true because it works. The end.

Ange thinks she already has the answer, and is looking for things that back it up as she goes. She's cynical and her hope is worn to the quick. If something upends what she assumed was true, she gets upset.

Will wants the right answer, and he's willing to work to get it. But when things get complicated, he starts to get frustrated. When he gets frustrated, he gets upset, and he starts railing against the inherent unfairness and injustice of a story about ritual murders.

In short, they're all biased.

They won't reach the same tru- you know what, forget using the word truth anymore. They won't reach the same ANSWER because they're using different methods- methods that are neither confirmed or denied to be right or wrong. The fact is, they all have love- except Will, and this is perhaps why he is closer to the ideal Sherlock.

Battler Route: Have faith in everyone, and break out of this as a family.(=biased answer) Then realize that Disney isn't going to animate you and start crying.

Will Route: Have no faith and reach an unbiased answer. Then whine and bitch when it turns out to be wrong.

Erika Route: Have no faith and reach a quick and easy answer (somewhat in the middle?). Then get trapped in your own little world. (Leads to Ange Route)

Ange Route: Have faith in some and only accept *your* answer. Then turn to Hamburger meat.

[Renall]

Will has a bias; he mentions it's why he resigned. But his bias is basically symptomatic of his lack of faith and general fatigue.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Renall

The main problem there is that the "evil people" were basically evil for no particularly good reason. Kyrie's always been sinister, but then she's like "WOOP TIME TO MURDER."

I'm still hoping somebody has a good reason. They could be misguided, but I don't want a culprit who is reluctant. The reason can make sense, as long as it's something that can be called reprehensible. Wishy-washy stuff is weaksauce.

Well yes, this is something I basically agree on, but it does not include that the culprit has to be genuinely evil in it's most basic sense. That would mean exactly what you criticized above, being evil apparently only for the reason of being evil, without a clear motive.
What I would like is a culprit, with a definitive goal that somehow leads him to murder. Murder does not have to be his primary motive, because that would fall back on him being evil just for evil's sake. He can regret what he does, but he still should not shy away from killing and if it's possible it should be so logical that even we as a reader can follow and understand that train of thought.

Like it was said, had Battler come back one year earlier or later, no matter what, the tragedy would not have been nearly as great. There would have been an incident, but not the tragedy that came to pass.

[Used Can]

I prefer the 34 route: Troll and have fun. There's no way to lose.

[Renall]

Yes well, that also means whoever is responsible has something out for Battler.

Which is kind of odd, given his survival rate. The George/Shannon theory sort of works with it, but I'm not convinced at all. Especially given how distrusting of Shannon George seems to be in general going by ep7.

[Helmet-kun]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yes well, that also means whoever is responsible has something out for Battler.

Which is kind of odd, given his survival rate. The George/Shannon theory sort of works with it, but I'm not convinced at all. Especially given how distrusting of Shannon George seems to be in general going by ep7.

I was thinking that it was a misunderstanding caused by Battler, which is why it is his sin. Kind of like how you tell a friend that you've seen their partner out with another man/woman, and this leads to something messy. As it turns out, the other man/woman was actually a sibling. Hilarity ensues, and you lose a friend whose life has turned to mush. Though in this kind of situation, it's not really your fault, right?

[Renall]

Well, there's several ways the whole "Battler being there is the problem" thing can play out:

• Battler Directly Causes the Killings: That is, he's directly responsible for whoever does it doing it, and that's the reason why they do it. It wouldn't happen the same way without him because whoever it is has it out for him specifically.
• Battler's Presence Enables the Killings: Something Battler says, does, or is makes the killer's plan possible or makes the killer want to do it, but he isn't specifically causing it.
• Battler's Non-Absence Fails to Prevent the Killings: Same as above but the opposite; if Battler weren't there, somehow the killings would be stopped by someone else, but Battler screws it up.
• Battler's Presence Changes the Killings: Someone was up to something, then Battler interceded, and something worse happened somehow.
• Battler Red Herring: Battler doesn't exactly affect the killings as strongly as we're led to believe. But he must have some kind of influence because we were told as much.

There are probably others. I just can't think of them right off.

[Helmet-kun]

Oh, there are alright:

• Battler is the Killer, and his sin is killing Asumu for mysterious reason X
• Battler is manipulating the culprit into doing the murders.
• Battler is the man from nineteen years ago. His sin is killing the original Battler. Unlikely to be true, but...

We don't really know what happens in the Kakeras, so anything's possible. But I suppose you can say that these are very unlikely... If you have faith in Piece Battler.

[Renall]

Battler mastermind would be the funniest twist of all (you can theoretically get there with a vague definition of "culprit"), but it would also totally invalidate a lot of things and be pretty dumb overall.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Helmet-kun

Oh, there are alright:

• Battler is the Killer, and his sin is killing Asumu for mysterious reason X
• Battler is manipulating the culprit into doing the murders.
• Battler is the man from nineteen years ago. His sin is killing the original Battler. Unlikely to be true, but...

We don't really know what happens in the Kakeras, so anything's possible. But I suppose you can say that these are very unlikely... If you have faith in Piece Battler.

But there are two things oposing this:[*]戦人くんは犯人ではありませんよ。 (Battler is not the culprit)[*]戦人くんは誰も殺してはいません。 (Battler does not kill anybody)

Also we have to consider two other things:
At least one message bottle seems to be send off before the beginning of the typhoon. Depending on how early before the beginning of the conference it was known that Battler was coming, the message could have only been composed in that time frame.
And the pure fact that Battler was attending seems to make it clear for the author of that message, that killing in that dimension will ensue, which would imply that Battler's mere presence kicks off those events.