[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

I think the loss of the 'Frederica' part would be mainly because she loses the 'Furude Rika' part of her personality, as there are no 'Nipaas~ ' or 'Nano-desu's for Bern. All that remains of her is the Bernkastel part, which is the Witch who had to go through countless worlds of tragedy and turned into such a bitch. As for the cat tail, it clearly was meant as a reference to Rika, after all, in all punishment games she wore a cat tail and ears and she said 'Mii~' imitating a cat's mew.

Actually there has never been any "Nipaah" or "mii" or "nano-desu" from Frederica Benkastel. and Rika only posed as a cat once in the whole story (again Rika not Bernkastel who never indulged in childish activities).

Basically from one side you're saying that Bernkastel shed her Rika side, and from the other you sare saying that there is a connection naming things that are only characteristic of Rika; which if there was any consistency she should have shed all together not acquired.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Shroedinger's Cat symbolism all up ins.

What Bernkastel has anything to do with schroedinger's cat? If there's a witch that should be associated with that is Beatrice not Bernkastel.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Also, Beings With Many Names gain and lose them all the time. Maybe the 'Frederica' part represents her Furude Rika aspect, which she surrenders when they part ways after Higurashi Rei?

Possibly, but Bernkastel is not a being with many names in Umineko.
You need to assume that she is the same person in Higurashi to claim that she has "many" names, but that's circular logic. You can't assume "A" and then use "A" to support "A".

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

there are no 'Nipaas~ ' or 'Nano-desu's for Bern.

Except in the EP2 ????.

[UsagiTenpura]

Bernkastel being a cat is probably related to her personality.
You know how cats plays with their victims until the later are dead/broken (and sometimes still continues to hit them to see if they're really dead). Cats can be cute, but they like other felines tend to be excessively cruel with their "toys". Also this later part might be pure coincidence, but cats don't taste sweets (LD). That could actually explain a lot about a few things...

LD's "sweets" couldn't beat Bernkastel. That could more or less mean that Bern won't be swept away by "emotional scenes". Bern cannot beat Beatrice however, cause you need to appreciate "sweets" in order to solve Umineko (all the without love stuff).

This might be pure coincidence as I said, but it does seem pretty fitting.


To me Bern is our passion for Higurashi that took a new form within Umineko, thus the new Bern.





Also something else entirely sorta. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, just opening up cans of possibilies... but is there anything that makes it actually impossible for Hachijou Ikuko to be a grown-up... Maria?

... and finally...

Originally Posted by Renall

Bear in mind that, at least according to Umineko, Higurashi is a fictional story. I wouldn't take the Meta-Layering of the independent WTC series too seriously in general though, and this from a person who takes everything about Umineko pretty seriously.

Doesn't that seriously hint that Umineko is also just that. You don't need Higurashi to have a prime reality within Umineko do you?

Originally Posted by Uberzaki

@Usagi
Sadly, The people who are most disappointed by the answer are the ones who desperately want a clear answer and therefore discuss this within the speculations thread.

I love Umineko for many of the things it has done, but when a particular thing doesn't make as much sense as we desire we tend to rationalise it as much as we can (just like Battler) even when said rationalising doesn't make us happier.

And when one spends around a hundred hours on a series, they expect an answer with a fair amount of detail. I think about Umineko almost every day, I believe most of the people who post (or just watch) on this thread do the same, I for one am far too inquisitive for my own good!

That's sorta what I overall disagree with. The standards people use about Umineko aren't standards they use on any other given stories. Also Ryuukishi told us way long ago that we'd never get a really clear answer.

Have you ever saw for instance David Lynch movies? Or maybe some japanese horror movies since they love to be based on them so much? Or even some japanese horror games. It'd probably be a good idea if mystery buff considered that these former are at least as huge influences on Umineko as mystery litterature can be.

Never seen anyone complaining about the lack of clear answer about that as much as people do it for Umineko. When they do complain it's like "this story's too messed up it's stupid" and they just move on. Actual fans don't really complain. Only Umineko brings in people the feelings of having been seemingly betrayed by an higher power lol. Anyway, for me Umineko's lack of answer is pretty typical of these things, which I've been a fan of for a long time now. It's basically like taking a work of fiction and treating it more or less as if it was a painting rather. You try to figure out what the author was trying to communicate or portray rather then figuring out the "factual truth" about the events you see. Paintings doesn't come with guides and people still speculate about those. I can understand this is not what most people could expect or appreciate for a story tho.

Also advice : if you think about Umineko every day, perhaps you need some sort of vacations from these thoughts and maybe things will make more sense after.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Actually there has never been any "Nipaah" or "mii" or "nano-desu" from Frederica Benkastel. and Rika only posed as a cat once in the whole story (again Rika not Bernkastel who never indulged in childish activities.

Well, except 'FREDERICA Bernkastel' is 'FURUDERIKA Bernkastel', so, yeah, she did have her 'Nipaah~'s, (even if she did so to put on a loli facade and hide her witch personality or whatever).

Basically from one side you're saying that Bernkastel shed her Rika side, and from the other you sare saying that there is a connection naming things that are only characteristic of Rika; which if there was any consistency she should have shed all together not acquired.

I did say Bernkastel shed her Rika side. However, clearly, Ryukishi wanted to have Bernkastel as a Rika reference, which explains all the common characterisitcs, let alone the fact that they look completely identical. According to an interview, her existence was actually planned to be just fanservice until she took over in EP5 which, as it appears, was a spontanteous decision. She always seemed as such in the beginning, so there's no need for any 'consistency' in particular, just Ryukishi going wild. It's really not something to think too hard about.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Except in the EP2 ????.

Shhhh! That's too much information!

[Asuka0NK]

There is something I have been wondering. I keep seeing around the internet that Battler apparently dated guys before. I vaguely remember him saying something like that but I forget if that is what he mean't. What part of the game was that like which arc and chapter? Thank you

Also to go along with the actual conversation. I remember Ryukishi07 saying that Bernkastel is a collection of all the abandoned kakeras and I always thought that after everything Bernkastel left Rika and went on to be the Witch of Miracles while Rika continued to live her life. Also what is Frederica. I know she is the girl who appears at the very end of Matsuribayashi and that she is a seperate being that Bernkastel so is she the embodiment of Matsuribayashi-hen like how Bern is all the bad kakeras.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

By the way, it's interesting that you say "what the author intended us to do." It's my suspicion that Ryukishi intuitively (though I doubt he thinks about it this formally) knows how to manipulate people in this way; that is to get some of us to choose the losing row. That is by starting to give out hints that 'there is no truth to be had' it will make people give up by believing it. Even though it becomes an absurd waste of time on his part. Not that I approve entirely, but it is interesting to see the methods to mess with your readers.

The problem is, he's not behaving in a manner which is consistent with hoping his audience declares there isn't a truth to find. If nothing else, he's consistently stated that some truth does exist, and at various times has challenged his audience to find it. If he wanted some people to instinctively presume that no truth existed to be found, he wouldn't flat-out say that one does exist. To assume otherwise is to believe he used Looney Tunes reverse psychology to convince a bunch of people a truth doesn't exist by claiming a truth does exist.

The reason certain people doubt a definitive truth exists is because he's had every opportunity to present it (or at least confirm some internet theorist as "99% there" or something) and no apparent reason not to do so (it's not like it'd kill him at this point or anything), and hasn't done it. He may have his reasons for doing so, but he hasn't elaborated very much on that other than to remain vague. People aren't doubting the truth exists because he's manipulating them into thinking so, they're doubting the truth exists because there is no evidence. There's a name for people who doubt things for which they have no evidence: "sane."

Okay, well, "skeptical."

However, I agree with Jan Poo and others about how the definitive answer needs to be outed by Ryukishi. This is just the 'whydunnit' though; I think there needs to be more 'howdunnits.' Although Our Confessions did help a lot in piecing most of it together. And as others have noted, some explanations about how some of the reds worked/didn't work would be nice.

I think the reason why he didn't want to tell us "The Answer", though, was that he got too close to Yasu/Beatrice. If Yasu was someone you knew, you too wouldn't want to go around blabbing her problems out. "Hey, my friend here was dropped on her head when she was a baby and now she has personality problems, lack of growth hormones, a flat chest and crushed gonads!" There's just no delicate way to say it. But at the same time, I feel like he forgot that she's a *character* and not someone real... so it IS okay to out these things, because ultimately it is the story you are trying to serve. (Maybe Ryukishi treats his characters as if they were real.. just like.. Yasu... ?!)

The problem here is it's difficult for some people - such as myself - to see Yasu with full and proper compassion and/or pity not knowing enough about him/her as a character to know what I'm supposed to feel about. If Yasu was the culprit, am I to be sympathetic? Judgmental? Sad? If Yasu was a scapegoat by choice, should I respect that? Does the character Yasu, as presented, even exist? I can guess how I might feel if certain scenarios were true, but I can't commit to possibilities emotionally.

It's like asking how you'd feel if you got word that your mother had died. You'd probably feel sad, but you don't feel quite the same degree of sadness (if any sadness at all) from the hypothetical death of your mother. She isn't actually dead. Well, unless it's the setup to an incredibly cruel piece of black humor:

"How would you feel if I told you your mother died?"
"I don't know, I'd feel pretty sad."
"You don't sound all that sad."
"Well, my mother isn't dead."
"Yeah, about that..."

[AuraTwilight]

What Bernkastel has anything to do with schroedinger's cat? If there's a witch that should be associated with that is Beatrice not Bernkastel.

Bear in mind that when Bernkastel was first introduced, she took pity on the reader and offered to assist them with her power, implying that she was pulling a Hanyuu.

Possibly, but Bernkastel is not a being with many names in Umineko.
You need to assume that she is the same person in Higurashi to claim that she has "many" names, but that's circular logic. You can't assume "A" and then use "A" to support "A".

Except yes, she is. Bernkastel, the Witch of Miracles, the Strongest Witch in the World, The Cruelest Witch In The World, The Witch Who Knows Miracles Do Not Exist...

Generally when you deal with fictional magical entities that treat names as having metaphysical significance or intrique, 'titles' count as much as any other actual address.

ESPECIALLY given how Fair Folk-ish witches in Umineko actually are.

ernkastel being a cat is probably related to her personality.
You know how cats plays with their victims until the later are dead/broken (and sometimes still continues to hit them to see if they're really dead). Cats can be cute, but they like other felines tend to be excessively cruel with their "toys". Also this later part might be pure coincidence, but cats don't taste sweets (LD). That could actually explain a lot about a few things...

LD's "sweets" couldn't beat Bernkastel. That could more or less mean that Bern won't be swept away by "emotional scenes". Bern cannot beat Beatrice however, cause you need to appreciate "sweets" in order to solve Umineko (all the without love stuff).

This might be pure coincidence as I said, but it does seem pretty fitting.


To me Bern is our passion for Higurashi that took a new form within Umineko, thus the new Bern.

Very interesting interpretation. I like it.

There is something I have been wondering. I keep seeing around the internet that Battler apparently dated guys before. I vaguely remember him saying something like that but I forget if that is what he mean't. What part of the game was that like which arc and chapter? Thank you

Someone released a Joke Screenshot of EP5 with edited text. That was never canon.

Also to go along with the actual conversation. I remember Ryukishi07 saying that Bernkastel is a collection of all the abandoned kakeras and I always thought that after everything Bernkastel left Rika and went on to be the Witch of Miracles while Rika continued to live her life. Also what is Frederica. I know she is the girl who appears at the very end of Matsuribayashi and that she is a seperate being that Bernkastel so is she the embodiment of Matsuribayashi-hen like how Bern is all the bad kakeras.

The witch of Higurashi that was part of Rika was called "Frederica Bernkastel", and she was an embodiment of all the abandoned Rikas. Whether Umineko's Bernkastel is the same witch is being debated.

[RandomAvatarFan]

There was a recent interview (wasn't it on this very thread) that said "yes, Umineko's Bernkastel is what happened to Higurashi's Frederica after she began wandering the sea of Fragments on her own."


http://animehistory.wordpress.com/20...ranscriptions/

This is the reason he created Bernkastel in order to put a direct link between Umineko and Higurashi.

(there was still another one that I can't seem to find right now...)
Also, PS3's Nocturne shows some interesting images for the duct tape seals. If you check out the trailer on the site...

[GreyZone]

Don't take Higurashi's existence too seriously in Umineko...


I think in EP1 or EP2 Battler said that "Higurashi no naku koro ni" is his favorite novel.

In one of the "???" tea parties Bernkastel threatened Lambdadelta with spoiling the contents of "Higurashi no naku koro ni", which Lambda claims to not have read/finished reading yet...

[Judoh]

I guess it's nice that he doesn't forget the fans of higurashi. He never explains how they're "linked" in that interview though, and until he does Bernkastel will be seen by a lot of people as a continuity nod to his previous works. Like Cid is for the final fantasy series, unfortunately. He's being very vague.

Originally Posted by Renall

We were definitely kicking around Author Theory and the notion of a Prime universe around ep4. I have no idea who first called it Rokkenjima-Prime, although it sounds like something I'd make up. "Author Theory" was proposed by somebody else and named by them, I believe, or named by someone commenting on their theory.

I actually felt pretty good about that one by ep6 as that pretty much all but confirmed it, and there was a large contingent here who felt the same way.

I'm 99.9% sure you came up with the name of the Author theory, and the "Rokkenjima Prime" label too. : )

[Aethos]

Originally Posted by GoldenLand

According to Umineko, the ones who were fighting with Higurashi as a gameboard were Lambadelta and Featherinne. Rika was just a piece of Featherinne's.

There's not any particular reason to assume that the fragment sea in Umineko is real and "can't be ignored". It could be real within the Umineko universe as a whole, partially real, or it might not be real at all and might just be something that took place totally in a character's imagination. We don't really know, because Ryukishi never told us whether the meta world actually "exists". And we don't know for certain whether the meta world activities are were written in the message bottles and forgeries.

I don't think that ep 8 taking place Ange's head makes witches existing in Rokkenjima Prime a more likely situation. Not sure what your logic is there for that. Or for saying Ange's side of the story outside episode 8 supports witches existing in Rokkenjima Prime.

From the Keiya interview with Ryukishi:



Suggesting there that Bern and Lambda appear in the meta world of Umineko. There's not really evidence that they exist as witches in Prime, or that any witches really exist in Prime. In fact, going by ep 8, Bern in Prime is probably just Ikuko's cat.

Renall earlier is probably correct that the meta world layering between Umineko and Higurashi shouldn't be taken too seriously. I don't think Ryukishi was taking it seriously either. He is definitely the type to just shove a character with a similar name to one from an existing series in and expand it a bit from there; he has said that he never really intended Bern and Lambda to get such big roles.

The one argument that I can think of for Ange right now is the building. Right now it could be considered debatable if she ever jumped or not and if Bernkastal came to her, but if we go by episode 8 and its true that Ange knows of Bernkastel then there's no reason to not believe that the witches are real in Rokkenjima Prime. At least in the 1998 version. Does Ange know Bernkastel or not? And if so how? Especially when the majority of this series took place in Tohya's head. Unless its being argued that Ange could somehow insert herself into Tohya's head and recover all the memories from that.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Aethos

The one argument that I can think of for Ange right now is the building. Right now it could be considered debatable if she ever jumped or not and if Bernkastal came to her, but if we go by episode 8 and its true that Ange knows of Bernkastel then there's no reason to not believe that the witches are real in Rokkenjima Prime. At least in the 1998 version. Does Ange know Bernkastel or not? And if so how? Especially when the majority of this series took place in Tohya's head. Unless its being argued that Ange could somehow insert herself into Tohya's head and recover all the memories from that.

I think people are forgetting one narrative layer when talking about this.
Of course there is the story within the story of the message bottles...and if we are even more correct these are two layers already...and then there is the narrative how it is presented to us by Ryûkishi. Basically we end up with a structure like this.

Rokkenjima narrative - message bottle author
Witch Battle narrative - meta world author
Truth Finding narrative - narrator(?)
Umineko narrative - narrator

The questions are (a) if the narrator of the Umineko narrative is the same as he narrator telling us about the encompassing story of Ange searching for the truth (which I would say they are not) and (b) in how far any of these narrators are trustworthy.
We have been trained neither to trust Beatrice's (respectively Tôya's) narrative of Rokkenjima nor the depiction of the meta world, but I think people are too quick in actually taking the narrative of 1998 at face value when there is not only the intention to deceive from the authors within the story but also from the author outside of the narrative frame. And no, I do not mean that the 1998 plot is "made up" just as the Rokkenjima variations aren't. They are -within the scope of the Umineko narrative- perfectly valid and possible alternatives to one another, only they are not to be taken as presented.

Let's take the example of Ange on the roof...or Ange's contact with the witch Bernkastel in general. What do their interactions tell us?
Bernkastel's first action towards Ange was whispering to her that her parents would never return if she ever tried to bond with her aunt Eva. She promised her that her family bond with her parents and Battler would break forever if she accepted Eva as her new mother. The same on the roof when Ange is told that her parents are kept prisoner by a witch in the year 1986 and that only Ange can rescue them and create a chance for them to be reunited.
Are these really scenes that can only be explained through magic?

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

The problem is, he's not behaving in a manner which is consistent with hoping his audience declares there isn't a truth to find. If nothing else, he's consistently stated that some truth does exist, and at various times has challenged his audience to find it. If he wanted some people to instinctively presume that no truth existed to be found, he wouldn't flat-out say that one does exist. To assume otherwise is to believe he used Looney Tunes reverse psychology to convince a bunch of people a truth doesn't exist by claiming a truth does exist.

The reason certain people doubt a definitive truth exists is because he's had every opportunity to present it (or at least confirm some internet theorist as "99% there" or something) and no apparent reason not to do so (it's not like it'd kill him at this point or anything), and hasn't done it. He may have his reasons for doing so, but he hasn't elaborated very much on that other than to remain vague. People aren't doubting the truth exists because he's manipulating them into thinking so, they're doubting the truth exists because there is no evidence. There's a name for people who doubt things for which they have no evidence: "sane."

Okay, well, "skeptical."

Ohhhh, I only mean convincing people that there's no truth while Umineko was going on. At the end of the series, I do think he should've presented a formal solution so that everyone will be brought up to speed. I know he said he wanted to preserve the 'pride' of those who did figure it out, but I'd say that most of those people could point to posts on mesage boards proving that they had understood already. (Like us on here.. heh.)

But yeah... I was trying to think of how you would go about tricking your readers as a mystery writer. Detective fiction or fantastical mystery, or other related mysteries. So I don't know about other strategies, but at least one used in Umineko would be to create a consequence (seemingly at first) that is 'too outrageous' to be true and thus drive people down the path to believing that it's hopeless. Of course, there has to be a proper explanation somewhere...

Like when light sabres appeared in Kanon's battle with... Lucifer, was it.. in EP2. Everyone I knew who hadn't read Higurashi threw up their hands at that. 8)

Originally Posted by Renall

The problem here is it's difficult for some people - such as myself - to see Yasu with full and proper compassion and/or pity not knowing enough about him/her as a character to know what I'm supposed to feel about. If Yasu was the culprit, am I to be sympathetic? Judgmental? Sad? If Yasu was a scapegoat by choice, should I respect that? Does the character Yasu, as presented, even exist? I can guess how I might feel if certain scenarios were true, but I can't commit to possibilities emotionally.

I think that's why I don't really consider 'Yasu' to be a real character and that believing she is the killer was some kind of final trick. It has to be Shannon and Beatrice. (And I suppose Kanon, but his story wasn't as developed as the other two.) I think we understand Shannon's position much better now, and why Beatrice would kill for her.

But yeah, I think that 'Yasu' was a final trick that Bernkastel (and by extension Ryukishi) pulled on us. Not exactly a mystery, but something that at the time made us think Yasu was a real person who was fully capable of behaving normally, but wasn't, because she 'fancied herself as someone else.'

But just like Jan-Poo said, if this is really the answer, he needs to say it. I think it's better to serve the story first than to serve characters, or only a subset of your readers, etc.... You know, we could still force it out of him with incessant questions. 8)

[haguruma]

I should always go back at least one page to check for older quotes...

Originally Posted by RandomAvatarFan

There was a recent interview (wasn't it on this very thread) that said "yes, Umineko's Bernkastel is what happened to Higurashi's Frederica after she began wandering the sea of Fragments on her own."


http://animehistory.wordpress.com/20...ranscriptions/

(there was still another one that I can't seem to find right now...)
Also, PS3's Nocturne shows some interesting images for the duct tape seals. If you check out the trailer on the site...

Well the interview doesn't say that exactly. It simply says that Bernkastel was created as a direct link between the two works because he had the idea for Umineko while finishing Higurashi...that does not actually imply that they are the same character but merely that they create a bridge between his works on a larger meta-scale.
It would be comparable to the Muppet movies (I know strange comparison, but I think it illustrates the point nicely). They are aware that they are in a movie and comment about it frequently (especially in The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan) so far that they jump out of their roles, reflect on the current scene and then enter back into the actual narrative frame. The Miss Piggy in the plot GMC is not the same as the one in the other movies but she is still always Miss Piggy within the Muppets universe.

....I can't believe I just compared Umineko and the Muppets

Originally Posted by Kylon99

But just like Jan-Poo said, if this is really the answer, he needs to say it. I think it's better to serve the story first than to serve characters, or only a subset of your readers, etc.... You know, we could still force it out of him with incessant questions. 8)

The question is though, what is the story that needs to be served?
Take for example Paul Austers City of Glass. It uses a hard-boiled mystery frame and poses many questions throughout its course of which basically none are answered. Does this mean that he has not fulfilled his obligation towards his readers? Is there even an obligation?
I think it's wrong to understand Umineko as a classical work of fiction that is bound so tightly by a genre-canon that it can only be understood in one certain way. Umineko is a text and what we make of it is largely different from what the author did when he wrote it...and that's what makes Umineko different. Umineko is not a story that needs to be told, but a story that needs to be read.

I don't know, I just can't agree with this incessant talk about a writers obligation to fulfill a certain goal that is dictated by the reader.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by haguruma

The question is though, what is the story that needs to be served?
Take for example Paul Austers City of Glass. It uses a hard-boiled mystery frame and poses many questions throughout its course of which basically none are answered. Does this mean that he has not fulfilled his obligation towards his readers? Is there even an obligation?
I think it's wrong to understand Umineko as a classical work of fiction that is bound so tightly by a genre-canon that it can only be understood in one certain way. Umineko is a text and what we make of it is largely different from what the author did when he wrote it...and that's what makes Umineko different. Umineko is not a story that needs to be told, but a story that needs to be read.

I don't know, I just can't agree with this incessant talk about a writers obligation to fulfill a certain goal that is dictated by the reader.

Well, obviously, no reader can go to the writer and tell them what to write or not to write. But most people are arguing that since he strongly urged us to think he ought to give out the answers.

But well, maybe making us think about the truth was one of the blocks to build up the whole concept of never revealing it. EP8 would be very dull if it was all about a truth nobody gave a shit about.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

....I can't believe I just compared Umineko and the Muppets

"Repeat it in red! Scurny burny gurny bork bork bork!"

Originally Posted by haguruma

I don't know, I just can't agree with this incessant talk about a writers obligation to fulfill a certain goal that is dictated by the reader.

Had he made no expectation or claim of a challenge, I would agree with you. He clearly framed things in a manner that painted a truth as important and a desire to find that truth as good. He then changed his mind. It is not comparable to the example of an author who uses his narrative as a way of posing unanswerable questions, because we can tell as we reflect on that author's work that we weren't supposed to look for the answer, merely wonder about it.

It's not really that difficult to gauge an author's intention for providing or not providing concrete answers. Nobody would be expecting an answer out of Ryukishi if he hadn't put himself in the position of claiming there was one and that people can and should find it.

[Aethos]

Originally Posted by Renall

"Repeat it in red! Scurny burny gurny bork bork bork!"Had he made no expectation or claim of a challenge, I would agree with you. He clearly framed things in a manner that painted a truth as important and a desire to find that truth as good. He then changed his mind. It is not comparable to the example of an author who uses his narrative as a way of posing unanswerable questions, because we can tell as we reflect on that author's work that we weren't supposed to look for the answer, merely wonder about it.

It's not really that difficult to gauge an author's intention for providing or not providing concrete answers. Nobody would be expecting an answer out of Ryukishi if he hadn't put himself in the position of claiming there was one and that people can and should find it.

haha... okay that first part made me laugh.

But anyways that leads us back to the real issue just what is the answer we're supposed to find? This isn't about people being lazy and just wanting the answer. It's about people wanting the answer because Ryukishi didn't do enough to give us a reasonable satisfactory answer that we all could come too. Saying there's an answer and then saying "everybody is right because everybody should have and believe in their own truth." is flat out saying they don't really have a concrete answer that everyone could have potentially found. It's not like Higurashi where everything led back to Takano. Umineko blatantly leads to dead end after dead end and all Ryukishi says is "well all the puzzles are solvable at least." Even if all the puzzles are solvable that doesn't tell us what really happened or give us a real conclusion. If they had intended the entire time for Umineko to remain open ended as a mystery with no conclusion then why do they keep saying there's only one right answer? If you're saying that everybody should feel like they're right then don't go backpedaling and say that there IS only one truth but we won't tell you what that is. I think that's what makes people mad the most. It's like reading a mystery novel with the last page ripped out, and never knowing how it truly ends.

You may say well what's the point of having a clear, defined answer if they want everyone to find their own truth. Well then what's the point of saying everyone's right only to turn around and say probably none of you are right but we'll just keep the answer hidden just so you can keep believing you are? That isn't how a mystery novel freakin' works.

[RandomAvatarFan]

That isn't how a mystery novel freakin' works.

It's not a mystery. It's an anti-mystery/anti-fantasy love story.

[Jan-Poo]

Okay guys stop everything! This is serious stuff!

I'm not taking credit for this, this is something that chronotrig spotted. A mystery that everyone overlooked so far, but that reveals without a doubt the criminal mind of one of the characters!

I will call it... THE MISSING CANDY MISTERY

First off let me show you what I'm talking about because many of you surely don't even remember the particular event I'm referring to, but I'd like to point out how this doesn't happen in just one episode but TWO, EP1 and EP2, and in the exact same fashion:

Spoiler for image:

As you can see it's the exact sentence. Hideyoshi was supposed to have a candy in his pocket, and he was supposed to give it to Maria, but for some unexplicable reason, he couldn't find it! It was not there!

Now the question is, how Hideyoshi acquired the missing candy in the first place. The answer is easy. Hideyoshi was supposed to have received a candy from Eva. In fact he later asks for more (EP1):

Spoiler for image:

Of course now you might say... but who knows when Eva got those candies. She might have had them for a while, and Hideyoshi might have lost his in a lot places...
Well... WRONG!
From EP1 we know exactly when Eva bought those candies:

Spoiler for image:

As you can see... the famous receipt we all know about was actually the receipt she got by buying the infamous candies... from the airport!!!
In other words Hideyoshi must have got a candy from Eva as soon as she bought them, and that candy was meant to be given to Maria.
However that candy vanished... how is it possible?

To answer that question we need to think... who knew that Eva bought candies and that she gave a candy to Hideyoshi?

Spoiler for image:

Oookay... he knew... obviously. But that doesn't mean anything!
Can we actually prove that George acquired a candy? Can we actually prove that he ate one?

Well the shocking revelation is from a sentence that inexplicably has always been translated wrongly. Here for the first time, you can see the truth!

Spoiler for image:

He had eaten it in the plane!!! And he still had the wrapping with himself!

And with this we can conclude that...

GEORGE STOLE MARIA'S CANDY!!!

He's clearly the culprit!

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

"Had he made no expectation or claim of a challenge, I would agree with you. He clearly framed things in a manner that painted a truth as important and a desire to find that truth as good. He then changed his mind. It is not comparable to the example of an author who uses his narrative as a way of posing unanswerable questions, because we can tell as we reflect on that author's work that we weren't supposed to look for the answer, merely wonder about it.

The question is, what is the truth that has to be found in Umineko and even more important what is the goal that Ryûkishi actually set.
He did not only make this a game, he made it a challenge. The price for us was always the truth, but he never actually promised to give it to us. Demanding a truth from him is similar to demanding a prize in a tournament even though you lost...or being paid simply because you gave it the best you had.
Of course most classical mysteries are so fair, or I would say gentle, that they give you the answer no matter if you were smart enough to get it...sometimes because the narrative is actually about something beyond the mystery and the answer has to be made clear in order to make sense of the narrative. In Umineko's case I'd argue that the uncertainty of truth is the message of the narrative and spelling out the truth any further than he already did would water it down.

And I'd disagree with you about him painting "searching and finding the truth" as good. He constructed a cast of central characters who supported that believe and actually had his main characters stand in for that goal...but does that immediately make this the message he wanted to convey? Even though he painted the characters who hid the truth as the villains for a certain part of the story, does that actually limit the message to "the truth is good"?
What would you say for example about Richard Mathesons novel I am Legend?

Spoiler for I am Legend ending:

Neville is the main character and, though a morally ambiguous character, his quest against the disease creating the vampires appears right. It is only at the end that we are able to fully understand that from their perspective he is the villain for murdering them and using Ruth as a test sample

.
Or what would you for example say about Hercule Poirots final solution in the Orient Express?

Spoiler for Murder on the Orient Express solution:

Shouldn't both the fact that they decide on a wrong solution and the fact that we never learned who dealt the killing blow bother you?

.

Originally Posted by Aethos

You may say well what's the point of having a clear, defined answer if they want everyone to find their own truth. Well then what's the point of saying everyone's right only to turn around and say probably none of you are right but we'll just keep the answer hidden just so you can keep believing you are? That isn't how a mystery novel freakin' works.

Then I'd really like you to tell me how a mystery novel works according to you. What are the rules that something has to obey to be a mystery novel? And I'd really like you to give me your own definition...

Regarding the rest, I think neither Ryûkishi nor 07th Expansion ever said that everybody was right in their solution, the message was merely that truth is subjective concerning an unobserved or uncertain situation. There is clearly a distinction made between truth in the sense of reality and truth in the sense of what really occurred. I'm partly referencing Jaques Lacan here (though using him differently) so bear with me. Reality and Real is not necessarily the same. Reality is that which we agree on in a society by observing the things that are there and especially those that aren't and by that agreeing on our current state of existence, it is therefore flexible. The Real does not change, it merely exists and is impossible to grasp in it's entirety by any human being.
We can construct such a reality for Umineko in many different ways and especially because certain elements are inaccessible we can make it become Reality, but that does not necessarily make it Real. A philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, actually applied this to detective fiction and said that the Real of a murder tears a hole into the Reality of a society, that is why the detective has to put an explanation into words in order to restore stability. Taking this further though it shows that, it does not matter though if the explanation encompasses the whole part of the Real which is the murder, it only has to be convincing enough to restore order or in other words, it must be indisprovable.