2012-07-03, 08:37 | Link #29521 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Because that sounds like what she ALREADY had the choices of doing before the Blue was introduced. |
|
2012-07-03, 08:45 | Link #29522 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
The difference is She doesn't have a choice when you make a blue truth. She has to respond to a blue truth by the end of the game or the blue truth is considered true by her silence. With White text she doesn't have to do that. There's many times in the first 3 games, where Battler made a theory in white text, and she said that she "refused to respond". Blue text was added to make the game more fair.
|
2012-07-03, 09:55 | Link #29524 | |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Quote:
If X is an illusion, it doesn't mean that Y is not. Also there is absolutely no logic behind the idea that a fictional being who admits to be so is less real (or more fictional) then another who does not. Arc 4 Ura ? |
|
2012-07-03, 14:07 | Link #29525 | |
Endless Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
Quote:
But I certainly would read such a forgery if you ever got around to it. XD I didn't completely understand everything you were saying here, but what I got out of it is that in your interpretation of Umineko, the Meta-World always exists, but the form Prime is in gives shape and context to the Meta-World's existence. And the Meta-World affects how us (The readers) view Prime, which affects the Meta World and so on and so forth. Like I said earlier, it's certainly a very interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure what to make of Umineko as a whole with it in mind. I see how it fits on a thematic level, though. |
|
2012-07-03, 14:21 | Link #29526 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Secondly since there is a narration that makes a distinction between "humans" and "dwellers of illusion" I argue that there is a logical basis to claim that the seconds are less real than the firsts. If you don't agree then you need to explain what's the narrative significance of this distinction in the narration. If it was meaningless the author wouldn't have written it. It might not prove I'm right with absolute certainty, but I think it's wrong to claim it means nothing. As for "If X is an illusion, it doesn't mean that Y is not." Of course not, but if it is our premise that X an illusion then we are sure that "X" an illusion whereas we are not in the case of "Y", which amounts to a difference of at least 50%.
__________________
|
|
2012-07-03, 18:06 | Link #29527 | |
Intellectual Rapist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-07-03, 18:06 | Link #29528 |
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
It's actually a case where "You are told X is an illusion" period. No other info.
But... still end up believing "there must be a Y and it must not be an illusion - and the illusion of X must not be too far from Y". Can you see why I find that "useless" as Battler say, at least? It's like you are forever courting a "demon". |
2012-07-03, 21:44 | Link #29529 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Quote:
And isn't Yasu/Beatrice's aim is always for Battler to remember? So if he remembers and know the truth (ep 5 infamous:"And...I understand") doesn't it mean she already win? Still think that the gold truth is pretty much Deus Ex Machina at the end of EP5. I still remember the end of Witch and Wooland, when Battle screem out in gold something along the like: "I'M THE FREAKING GAME MASTER SO WHAT I SAY IS TRUE. " Isn't it really how you interpreted the Gold, Jan-Poo? This is some seperate issue but I don't quite get the "for world peace" thing in Amakusa and Okonogi. Is that because they're afraid that the truth about the Italian submarines is annouced? Honestly I don't think she could find the gold or find any trace for the submarine story, which could be true or not. In the same vein, I don't get why Amasuka has to kill Ange, too. The only way Ange is not killed is for her to abandon the fortune. It is quite irony then that the guy who kept speaking about LOVE ends up killing her for money, so I never took that theory serious. At the end of EP6, I thought there would be some conspiracy behind... Last edited by ndqanh_vn; 2012-07-03 at 21:54. |
|
2012-07-03, 21:52 | Link #29530 |
黄金の魔女 Golden Witch
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Natal-RN, Brazil
Age: 28
|
Tecnically yes, when Battler figured the truth at the end of EP5 Beato fulfilled her goal, but sadly for her Battler figured out after she was dead. Then there was the whole thing with Chick-Beatrice at EP6 representing the Kuwadorian Beato and etc.
__________________
|
2012-07-03, 21:56 | Link #29531 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Quote:
Seriously I think the old guy is forgiven too easily. Love or not be damned, even if I understand his motive, I still find his action unforgivable. |
|
2012-07-03, 23:26 | Link #29533 | ||
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
|
Quote:
That seems pretty much fitting with the themes of Umineko so I take that scene as a way to present that idea to us as directly as possible. It also seems to suggest that either the truth is "really ugly" or "looks really ugly when you don't know it but really isn't". Quote:
Okonoki claimed to be surprised when told he was the one who had said "without love it cannot be said". Now we see him talk about "world peace". That could be a way to define his character to us. He's the kind of guy who'll say grandiose sensational things on the spot without thinking much about them but he's a crook. The other alternative I can think of is that this was a sort of alternate ending akin to arc 8's "trick" answer. |
||
2012-07-03, 23:35 | Link #29534 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Quote:
Nobody could trust that child-killing mook from Higurashi, no matter how often he said about "love". Actually what I am trying to ask is how Ange going to be related to "world peace" here? Or as you say, it's just Okonogi smoothing things over. Still weird for Amakusa to agree, if he's not a jerk. And if he is, it is even weirder that in the end, Okonogi and Amakusa got everything they want just as plan. Actually in every kind of ending for Ange, to Okonogi he still got all the money. Okay now maybe it's not such an important plot thread. I remembered there is a Conspiracy theory or something like that about Okonogi planned to kill the whole Ushiromiya family when EP6 comming out... |
|
2012-07-04, 00:21 | Link #29535 | |||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Perhaps when Beatrice writes a Gameboard, she isn't creating a fictional story OR creating an alternate universe, but rewriting reality itself, which can then shape the Meta-World and thus effect Prime again. Bernkastel writes about Kyrie being the culprit, which makes it true, which makes people suspect Battler culprit theory, which makes Black Battler exist, which creates a story ABOUT Black Battler, which makes it true, which makes people think about....which makes....which becomes true....which.... Only the unveiling of Truth that claims to be Absolute can break the cycle, but doing so could kill all the sentient beings constantly born through the process. The truth may be liberating, but it may also be destructive. Which world is more important to you, Ange? Make your choice. Quote:
If you think he's not deserving of forgiveness, when he did everything he thought he could do, you...just might be kind of evil. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2012-07-04, 02:19 | Link #29536 | ||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Of course certain sentient beings are killed by the process of forming truth (be it the actual truth or just a convenient truth), but certain beings continue to exist. For example if culprit Battler were true, Black Battler could continue to exist as he is not solely dependent on the magical narrative like for example The 1000 Year Old Endless Witch Beatrice from EP1-5 is. This is very well shown due to Kanon and Shannon. Let's assume we uncovered the truth of what actually happened in 1986, but the Kanon subplot had incidentally no relation to it whatsoever. Maybe this would lead to people just not questioning Kanon's existence in 1986 and thus he would continue to exist on Rokkenjima during that time from the perspective of the people in the future. This actually leads me to an interesting idea about the Shannon and Kanon resurrection in EP3. Not only the original author has power over the existence of those sentient "beings of the fantastical realm", but everybody who contributes to the pool of "Rokkenjima stories and fabrications". Basically the conviction of George and Jessica that the person they met was Shannon and Kanon respectively made them appear at that point because there was nothing disputing that point of view. Maybe, if we had questioned Beatrice about "that Shannon" or "that Kanon" she might have had to say: "These are not the same Shannon and Kanon who died. That Shannon or Kanon can never be resurrected again." (We actually have some hints of this in EP2 when Shannon says something along the lines, that she noticed too late how this Kanon was not actually Kanon.) This is what I meant further above when I said that 幻想の住人 was closer in meaning to "Inhabitants of the Fantastical" than to "Illusion Dwellers", because they are less product of illusions but still dependent on believe and the creation of such a realm (which is fictional = fantastical). The same thing is basically quintessential in historical studies. You have to be aware that everything you are dealing with is a reconstruction and get's more and more vague the less evidence you have. But even the evidence you have can be false, falsely read, falsely interpreted, anything. The Queen Elizabeth I or Albert Einstein or even Adolf Hitler we talk about in history classes today is also to a great deal "fictional" in the way that they are recreated from evidence. Everything about them could change everyday, which basically would mean that the Elizabeth that existed in our 1576 would "die" and be replaced by a new (from over view more correct) Elizabeth. Quote:
He might have been a pretty terrible father, an egoistical whiner, an adulterer, maybe even a murderer and rapist, but he seemed to hate himself for every one of those things. The only thing that apparently made him happy for a short while was his time with Bice. Even in the time with his daughter, whom he fashioned to be a ressurection of Bice, he seemed to be subconsciously unhappy...getting angry whenever she called him father (it was a little visible in the EP3 scene, but it really becomes apparent with BATTLER and Chick-Beato), locking her up, etc. I wouldn't want to make excuses for him, he probably was a pretty faulty person all put together, but because we never actually got to hear many views on how he ACTUALLY treated (or thought of) his grandchildren, Battler's depiction in EP8 might be true as well. |
||
2012-07-04, 03:01 | Link #29537 |
The True Culprit
|
And, and I can't stress this enough, HE TRIED TO REDEEM HIMSELF. He devoted the remains of his life to it.
But the only person who could absolve him of his actions is dead, and he didn't even have a hand in it. Even if he directly murdered her, he can't make up for it no matter how much he tries. But...the same is true if you break a one of a kind vase, technically. The same is true if you're missing from your son's life for the first eight years of his life. No sin can TRULY be undone. It's impossible. You can only compensate for it. Kinzo did his damnedest to compensate for it. If he could do more, he would have. Who the hell are any of us to deny him atonement purely because he can't do the impossible? If we ignore the effort he did make, and judge him purely by the original sins he committed, then we are sending the message that the struggle to atone has no inherent value. And I want no part of any system of ethics that doesn't acknowledge how beautiful such a struggle makes an otherwise broken man.
__________________
|
2012-07-04, 03:14 | Link #29538 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
I remember how I actually teared up a little when I translated the line about Kinzô's fight with Rosa stemming from the fact that he threw a tantrum because he wanted to name Maria and had prepared "such a wonderful name" (whatever it was) for her. Kinzô did try and he tried hard, so hard it drove him at least a little insane. But imagine being in a house with 4 children from a possibly pretty loveless relationship, them growing older, reminding you every day how the time with the one person you loved slips further and further into obscurity. All the while you couldn't even talk about it, let alone openly mourn that loss. It's actually also pretty sad to see how much alike he and Rosa were...and all she ever did was being afraid of him. |
|
2012-07-04, 03:27 | Link #29539 |
The True Culprit
|
All of that is part of the reason why I like to think of EP8 Kinzo as being canon. He does seem like he WANTED to love his grandkids, and they're not pecking vultures like his children.
And the older ones especially would've been Lion's playmates, and I can imagine that running through his mind whenever he looks at them.
__________________
|
2012-07-04, 05:28 | Link #29540 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
|
Well, I think it went too much into personal judgment. But to me, even if I understand how a person suffers throughout his life that might have influenced what he did, the act is still something that have to be judged seperately.
And it's very personal. So I don't hope you agree with me here, because you might not view those things the same way at I am. The implied fact that he made a child out of Beatrice II crossed the line for me, because maybe in my opinion, it's pretty much a sin that is unforgivable, in any circustance or reason. So I hope that he did not. There is a possiblity that he did not. That kind of personal moral sense did put me in quite a strong difficulity in reading EP7. Because whatever the author says or shows me, I just cannot forgive Kinzo. I cannot appreciate the love he gave to Beatrice II. And the whole thing echoes EP6 make me feel even more uncomfortable looking at Chick-Beato (it was already quite uncomfortable to me at the point of reading it the first time) . So it gets a lot in my enjoyment to the story . |
|
|