2012-06-13, 06:57 | Link #29141 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
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. 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. Quote:
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".
__________________
|
||
2012-06-13, 10:04 | Link #29143 | ||
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
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... Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by UsagiTenpura; 2012-06-13 at 10:45. |
||
2012-06-13, 10:49 | Link #29144 | ||
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
Quote:
Shhhh! That's too much information!
__________________
|
||
2012-06-13, 12:31 | Link #29145 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
|
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. |
2012-06-13, 12:34 | Link #29146 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
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." Quote:
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..."
__________________
|
||
2012-06-13, 15:08 | Link #29147 | |||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2012-06-13, 16:19 | Link #29148 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
|
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/ Quote:
Also, PS3's Nocturne shows some interesting images for the duct tape seals. If you check out the trailer on the site...
__________________
Last edited by RandomAvatarFan; 2012-06-13 at 17:00. |
|
2012-06-13, 17:21 | Link #29149 |
"Senior" "Member"
Join Date: Jan 2012
|
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... |
2012-06-13, 17:24 | Link #29150 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
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.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-06-14, 00:34 | Link #29151 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-06-14, 01:09 | Link #29152 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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 Ryűkishi. 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? |
|
2012-06-14, 01:16 | Link #29153 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
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) Quote:
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) |
||
2012-06-14, 02:45 | Link #29154 | ||
Senior Member
|
I should always go back at least one page to check for older quotes...
Quote:
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 Quote:
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. |
||
2012-06-14, 05:13 | Link #29155 | |
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2012-06-14, 10:20 | Link #29156 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
"Repeat it in red! Scurny burny gurny bork bork bork!"
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2012-06-14, 22:00 | Link #29157 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PA
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2012-06-14, 23:27 | Link #29159 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
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!
__________________
|
2012-06-14, 23:34 | Link #29160 | ||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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:
Or what would you for example say about Hercule Poirots final solution in the Orient Express? Spoiler for Murder on the Orient Express solution:
Quote:
Regarding the rest, I think neither Ryűkishi 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. |
||
|
|