[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[GoldenLand]

Originally Posted by Dormin

If we consider the setting of umineko being a murder story, the meta level is beatrice trying to trick battler into believing her truth. Wouldn't this mean that taken to meta-meta level the reader and Ryu have exactly the same relationship as battler and beatrice? Wouldn't this mean that our objective as reader is to not accept the truth and culprit that Ryu is trying to show us? Wouldn't this mean that Yasu is just meta-meta twist Ryu generated in the intention of trying to make us believe in his lies?

Beatrice showed Battler the games because she wanted him to see through them and realise who she is and what her "heart" is. The games were made to be solved. Similarly, Ryukishi is the author who is presenting the mysteries of the game boards and of Beatrice's heart to the readers, and those were made to be solved. That's a real parallel between a fictional author and a real author.

But, why would that mean that Yasu never existed in Rokkenjima Prime/the stories and that our objective is to see through that? That doesn't seem to follow. Even aside from the stories themselves, in interviews, Ryukishi's spoken about Yasu in terms which make it clear that she actually does (er, fictionally) exist, so unless basically everything he's said about the series is a big lie, I don't think Yasu's existence can be doubted. Ryukishi is trying to give us mysteries which can be solved without being easy to copy-paste. Also, we've never been told who the culprit was, except in the game board stories where at least some of the time it has to be Yasu/Shkanon/Beatrice.

Though I do think that Ryukishi may have intended to fool some people into thinking that Yasu/etc was the Rokkenjima Prime culprit.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I just open my post with my basic point.
There cannot be proof of love.

Irrelevant. The question is how a person behaves, which is discernible, not how a person feels. And everyone behaves like a gigantic raging dick to Ange over something that is totally rational for her to be angry about.

You cannot be sure who is actually working with who.

You can, however, be certain for yourself, so there should at least be a probability of an individual betrayal. There may also be ways that a clever person could investigate and eliminate possibilities. Plus if you're Krauss, I don't think you're too terribly concerned that an unarmed Maria or Rosa might be working with somebody. You've got quite a strength edge on them.

The main thing is how trivial it would be for somebody to slip away if they knew. It can't be that hard to get to a safe distance and wait until you see Yasu passing between buildings or something. Decide if it's worth the risk of ambushing her, or run the hell away.

Or just, you know, find another room and try to call the police on the sly. It appears the phones actually do work, and if they don't, you know Genji's in on things so go check the switchboard and see if he's disabled it.

While that is true, there are also enough deconstructions of fantasy scenes as well as character development that show how money is essentially a means to achieve higher goals. Rudolph's goal was not amassing money but saving his company and keeping his promise to his co-workers. Rosa's goal was not money but getting her husband and family life back. Eva's goal was not money but making her family happy and prosperous.

And yet none of these people would consider the probable consequences of their actions on others, how it might hurt them, and how it most likely won't work, which is the biggest issue I have with their behavior.

Kyrie left her daughter in a home that she had left a long time ago and had a very bad relationship with. This alone is proof enough that she expected something to happen that would be too much for a sick 6 year old to handle.

Or... Ange was legitimately sick, and there was no point in bringing her because it would leave her exhausted from travel, cranky at a time when Kyrie needed to be able to argue with the other parents over stuff, and generally not really fit to be there? I mean, I thought that was established; Ange testifies as much herself.

Battler knew that Kyrie was his mother and thus covered not only for Ange's sake, but out of filial piety.

If I found out for the first time that someone was my mother when I was 18 years old, and that she'd murdered my entire family, there is no way on Earth I am feeling a twinge of filial piety for that monster. Try harder.

There is no known record of the events given by Yasu after they occured, thus she could neither cover for her nor accuse her.

Beatrice's attitudes and behaviors can be said to be reflective of Yasu's attitude toward what is happening in ep8, and if nothing else she appears to be in agreement with Battler. Also, if she did commit suicide after the fact, the rationale behind such actions can be pared down and theorized on, and I'm fairly sure you know what that would mean if true.

What is intentional about it if they decide and BELIEVE that her not knowing the truth is the best thing for her? They are not doing it out of intentional malice or superiority, they are doing it out of misguided good-will.
If a parent keeps his child from going outside, because it could get hurt, that is surely motivated by good intentions, but in the end keeps the child from becoming self-reliant and thus hurts it in the end.

I understand you're reasoning, but I think you are seeing malice and evil where there is none.

So if I understand you correctly, is it your argument that Battler chooses to treat Ange as literally a six-year-old child, despite her claims and all evidence to the contrary? That is, are you suggesting he is not only wrong, but also a condescending douchebag? Who are the villains in ep8 supposed to be, again?

Battler doesn't know Ange. She has spent twice as much of her life after his "death" in a world he cannot possibly know. He is not only not a good person to judge what is best for her, he's basically got absolutely zero moral authority to determine what is best for her. He's worse than Eva in that respect. If an 18-year-old Ange tells him she can handle it, who the hell is he to say otherwise? Where is his trust for his sister of the future? Where is his love for her? If he has no other motivation, then he is just a dick. If his desire to trust her is mitigated by a deep and selfish personal desire that telling her would destroy, his action is at least something that could merit sympathy, and his patronizing attitude can be excused as a show he's putting on to protect himself. In other words, it allows him to hurt Ange without having as his primary purpose the desire to hurt Ange, the latter of which would make him at least an asshole and at best evil.

Thematically, if Battler is no different from Eva, then Ange is literally alone in every way exactly as she says she is and everyone is talking down to her and distrustful of her. Why should she make the "right" decision in the face of that? Not one person trusts her. Not one person has bothered to ask her what will make her happy, they've just told her that she needs to be happy. That's a horrible moral to present: "People know what's best for you, so it's probably better to just accept that, no matter how reasonably upset you are."

The agents of her pain have no moral right to tell her she shouldn't feel that pain. If, on the other hand, those same individuals derive personal benefit from the existence of the catbox, at least then we can say that they are conflicted between a genuine desire to give Ange what she wants and the realization that they can't both do that and have what they want. It makes them jerks, but at least it doesn't make them monsters.

You could say that, were he a good parent to Yasu, he should have tried to keep her from her suicidal tendencies, get her off the island and make her start a new life. Still, he felt hugely indebted to Kinzo's house and could therefore probably not imagine ripping this apart.

...

The same goes for Natsuhi and Krauss' reason to go with Yasu's bomb threat. It is not only them being cowards, it is also the fear of losing face no matter what way of resistance they choose.
Getting the siblings in on everything would reveal them hiding Kinzo's death and Krauss' inability to handle the families finances. This would not only be admitting a crime, but also losing face in front of his younger siblings and prostrating themselves before them.
Them revealing Yasu's threat to the outside world by disarming her and making her plan fail would ruin Krauss' side of the family on a very personal level. His only collateral right now is Rokkenjima itself, which would lose a lot of value after the explosives were discovered, not speaking of him having to explain how he could use a possibly dangerous island as collateral in the first place, especially if Yasu is still alive and would turn out to be the actual inheritor of Kinzo's fortune including the island.

These arguments are absolutely ridiculous. "Saving face" is more important than certain death for your entire family? "Not tearing the family apart" is more important than the family being alive? No. Screw that. I'm not letting you pull "but Asian sensibilities!" out of your hat to justify those nonsensical thought processes. Saving face is important, sure, but not letting your entire family be murdered by a psychopath who will almost certainly betray you is far more important than that. Most of what's been promised is either highly dubious or outright impossible to demonstrate; why would you trust this person over the goodwill and forgiveness of your family?

Not that I have to really protest it, because I can counter it: Krauss was willing to shame and sacrifice himself alone for the sake of his wife and daughter. It's in ep5. He was also willing to fight back against someone trying to use him to coerce others; that's in ep4. That he shows these tendencies at all convinces me that he would never go along with such a thing, because he would rather die in noble defiance than allow others to fall into the same trap he'd fallen into. And he would probably rather admit to concealing Kinzo's death by himself and go to prison for it than let Natsuhi or anyone else take the rap for it. You can argue Yasu was presenting him an out to both problems, but I believe he is a more moral person than that. I believe all the adults are more moral than that... and smarter, so I don't for a second think they wouldn't be coming up with ways to get back at Yasu and stop her. In fact, an argument for greed only makes them more likely to do so. Look at what Kyrie does in ep7.

All of the motivations and attitudes you are ascribing to these people suggest instead that they would rather die and let everyone else around them die in order to preserve things that will be inevitably destroyed when they all die. It goes beyond self-defeating and stupid to just being outright insane.

Is it your position that the characters in Umineko are insane?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Irrelevant. The question is how a person behaves, which is discernible, not how a person feels.

Is this true in a story that is mainly about emotions create totally diverging world views? Or in the case of Ange, how she is mainly driven by her desire to find/rediscover love? This is highlighted in Erika's dilemma, how she was driven mad by the need to find human proof of or against the love of her boyfriend.

You can, however, be certain for yourself, so there should at least be a probability of an individual betrayal. There may also be ways that a clever person could investigate and eliminate possibilities.

You are asking people to act rationally in a highly tense and stressful environment. Of course we can say that we might want to act in a certain way during such a situation, but who is to say that somebody or even all of us might not succumb to paranoia.

Or just, you know, find another room and try to call the police on the sly.

But they were all depicted to be against involving the police out of several personal reasons. The only person who might have been ready to call the police was Battler, maybe Jessica and George as well, depending on your view of them.
If people were actually moral enough to call the police then, they should have been moral enough for a far longer time.

If I found out for the first time that someone was my mother when I was 18 years old, and that she'd murdered my entire family, there is no way on Earth I am feeling a twinge of filial piety for that monster. Try harder.

Proof that Ushiromiya Battler thinks that way. Hell, proof that anybody would actually act this way. Say it in Red.

Battler doesn't know Ange.
He's worse than Eva in that respect. If an 18-year-old Ange tells him she can handle it, who the hell is he to say otherwise? Where is his trust for his sister of the future? Where is his love for her? If he has no other motivation, then he is just a dick.

Does a parent who is mostly absent due to work have no right to interfere in the upbringing of their child?
And does trust automatically equal love? Does not trusting equal the absence of love?
If your 18 year old brother was to open a drawer in which you know your parents keep items that could potentially harm if not destroy his love for them, would you just let it open to him because he tells you he knows what he is doing?

I see you being motivated by the idea that individualism and personal freedom is a very high good and in your cultural and social environment that might be right and might have been highlighted in your upbringing, but don't forget that this is not the only and not necessarily the correct way to view the world.

These arguments are absolutely ridiculous. "Saving face" is more important than certain death for your entire family? "Not tearing the family apart" is more important than the family being alive? No. Screw that. I'm not letting you pull "but Asian sensibilities!" out of your hat to justify those nonsensical thought processes.

Are they really that ridiculous though if this is how some prestigious or reasonably well-doing families have acted in the past in Japan?
On the other hand consider this, does it help your family if your public image is in shambles, you are in debts beyond any way of ever paying off and some of you might even go to jail? Yes, at least most Americans I know would answer with a clear "I'd rather live in the gutter with my loved ones than betray them", but isn't that utter egoism as well? You are just highlighting different aspects of reality to be more real, more worthwhile.

I'm not saying these are Asian sensibilities, that is THE big misunderstanding when talking about "Japan" in any way. There are no "Asian sensibilities", but there are diachronic paradigms in Japanese social-cultural reality that highlight several aspects of family and love different than in most of the US-American-based Western society of the postwar era.
One book I find quite insightful (even if obviously biased in certain areas) is Matthews Hamabata's Crested Kimono from 1990.

That he shows these tendencies at all convinces me that he would never go along with such a thing, because he would rather die in noble defiance than allow others to fall into the same trap he'd fallen into.

Why is his defiance noble?

Is it your position that the characters in Umineko are insane?

Not insane, just caught in a net of lies and social expectations, which traps inherently flawed and thus human people in a situation out of which they cannot free themselves because of their own shortcomings.

If people on the island were actually as noble as you want them to be, why did only Eva survive?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

If people on the island were actually as noble as you want them to be, why did only Eva survive?

Everyone else sacrificed themselves so Eva and Battler could live.

Can you prove otherwise?

[Dormin]

I think the biggest problem with the interpretation of chapter 8 here is that renall has clear view on his theories but bases the assumptions of ep 8 on his own worldview and on what you personally think is "logical action" in certain situation.

As ep 8 is clearly written to showcase emotion, and any claims and arguments about relationship between characters from your viewpoint in certain context turn out to be your assumptions. Even things like "battler barely knows ange" is logically true, as meta aside they haven't probably been in touch for long periods of times because conflicts between him and rudolf, but basing any opinion solely on your judgement on what is right and logical is not generally accepted fact. You can clearly see that battler has love for ange in ep 8 even though this is the pinnacle of "being logically wrong".

Originally Posted by Renall

Everyone else sacrificed themselves so Eva and Battler could live.

Can you prove otherwise?

And please. Even though I generally think you are good at arguing, this kind of argument is just poor show.
Can you prove that entire umineko is not your dream?
Can you prove that you even exist outside illusion?
Can you prove that devil's don't exist?
This kind method of arguing, while being "logically" true as evidence is missing, is just simply put retarded and childish. Basically any argument stating "you cannot prove otherwise" while achieving certain evidence of argument is impossible falls under category of childish squabbling. Can you for example prove that battler wasn't vampire, because as there was no evidence of this not being true, you can't right?

But all these asspulls aside, I am honestly interested what kind of theory you have that could explain everyone else on the island sacrificing their lives for eva and battler.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Dormin

I think the biggest problem with the interpretation of chapter 8 here is that renall has clear view on his theories but bases the assumptions of ep 8 on his own worldview and on what you personally think is "logical action" in certain situation.

As ep 8 is clearly written to showcase emotion, and any claims and arguments about relationship between characters from your viewpoint in certain context turn out to be your assumptions. Even things like "battler barely knows ange" is logically true, as meta aside they haven't probably been in touch for long periods of times because conflicts between him and rudolf, but basing any opinion solely on your judgement on what is right and logical is not generally accepted fact. You can clearly see that battler has love for ange in ep 8 even though this is the pinnacle of "being logically wrong".

My worldview is one which has actually been examined. Dismissing my foundational understanding of things as mere opinion is both disingenuous and pointless. To say that my interpretation of the moral fiber of the story is taken solely from my own concept of morality is... rather self-evident, don't you think? And certainly not something to be taken as derogatory. I'm quite proud that I am passing moral judgment on a work of fiction on the basis of my understanding of what is and is not moral. I've thought pretty hard about that.

As to your actual factual points. Battler does display love for Ange. He also does take actions which hurt her. You can't argue one is true and deny the other is true. It's necessary to make sense of these things, and most people cannot provide a coherent argument that makes Battler anything other than a condescending paternalist, exactly the sort of person Ange is rebelling against. That might be true, but it makes Battler one of the villains and justifies Ange, so Battler shouldn't be correct in the end. If Battler is, nevertheless, correct, then the answer provided by the work is that Ange should not have had her own thoughts and desires about what she thought would make her life meaningful and should have conformed to what people told her was best for herself.

I am 99.9% sure that is not the intended message, and if it is, it rightfully deserves to be condemned for being unconscionable and emotionally manipulative. Battler having a personal incentive beyond a mere paternalistic belief that he knows what will make his adult sister whose life he has had no influence over for most of the time she has been alive (can we please not forget this?) happy at least humanizes his opposition to her behavior and contextualizes why he believes she is being hurt by her pursuit (because it's his fault, he's the one that's hurting her, and he doesn't want to do that).

And please. Even though I generally think you are good at arguing, this kind of argument is just poor show.

You missed the part where that was my point there. It's practically all anyone here does. I look at themes and narrative construction, I pull text, I try to argue motives, and all I get spat back in my face is "well that's, like, your opinion, man" and "but you can't prove THIS couldn't be the case instead!" Well yeah, it could be... but that's stupid, because it doesn't match with other things. I'm willing to acknowledge the limits of what I can get at, but at least make the same degree of effort.

These arguments will never end when people dismiss my foundation for argument as equally valid to any other position (it isn't) and refuse to engage on the basis of their own (because they generally don't have one, or haven't given theirs sufficient thought). We will just go back and forth on the same issues for the remainder of all time... in no small part because the last time we tried to get at the basis for the discussion it was considered to be off-topic. So I guess we're just doomed here.

If that's the overall message of the story, I rather think it proves my point that lack of truth is ultimately the real poison here.

[Rapossu]

Hey guys I have been reading this threat since… I don’t even remember, and maybe it's finally time to start posting with you guys if you don’t mind. English it's not my native language but I'll try my best here.

If the entire point of Umineko is to learn how to let go, them is the work with most buildup leading to an unbelievable letdown I have ever read. Why would an author write a story dressed as a mystery just to say in the end – sorry guys you will not have an answer, but you see, the entire point was to learn how to let go, so… just let go…..

And don’t argue that Umineko its Anges story, she doesn't even appear until almost half of the way.
The most fuckup thing in Umineko for me it’s the idea that in every episode someone help Shakanon for some reason, I mean, seriously? Everyone it’s a potential assassin because LOLGOLD? Them its better let go because the murderer in the end is everyone! I mean why not? If they are willing to face they kinsfolk crying, begging for mercy and shot them in the face for gold or whatever why we need Shanon? why would the others be considered less murderess than Shanon?
The scene can happen even without that entire Shakanon thing, someone just need to find the gold and COMMENCE BATTLE ROYA… so what's the point?
(We even see that in Lion timeline)

I seriously hope that I'm wrong in that last bit, because to me, I would ruin umineko, I can't accept that Rykushi would make such game table even if someone is pulling the strings, but that puppet master would be the only explanation that make a little sense, and I don’t mean Shakanon BS, I mean like politicians or military folks that track down that ton of gold to get all back and even that can't make the LOLGOLDKILLFAMILY thing much less shitty.

[Dormin]

Originally Posted by Renall

You missed the part where that was my point there. It's practically all anyone here does. I look at themes and narrative construction, I pull text, I try to argue motives, and all I get spat back in my face is "well that's, like, your opinion, man" and "but you can't prove THIS couldn't be the case instead!" Well yeah, it could be... but that's stupid, because it doesn't match with other things. I'm willing to acknowledge the limits of what I can get at, but at least make the same degree of effort.

If your attempt was to make some kind of retarded counter-argument only to showcase the retardness of the opposing arguer, then I totally missed your point and I must apologize. It warms my heart bit knowing that you weren't serious and wouldn't fall for this kind of baseless arguing.

Originally Posted by Renall

I am 99.9% sure that is not the intended message, and if it is, it rightfully deserves to be condemned for being unconscionable and emotionally manipulative. Battler having a personal incentive beyond a mere paternalistic belief that he knows what will make his adult sister whose life he has had no influence over for most of the time she has been alive (can we please not forget this?) happy at least humanizes his opposition to her behavior and contextualizes why he believes she is being hurt by her pursuit (because it's his fault, he's the one that's hurting her, and he doesn't want to do that).

So I'll just play this card here and then we can move on with something more factual: even if you hate it, your worldview is still your opinion. I respect the fact that you clearly have strong sense of morality and have spent time constructing it, but then again, as childish it might be to point out, that is purely your own opinion. Nothing can change the fact that "right" and "wrong" are very subjective terms, and when mashed together with visions of ones morality, we have hell of a minefield of subjectivity.

But now that's out of the way let's move to something else. As you stated above with your 99.9% probability, the way characters act towards eachother and the overall writing style, seeing battler as an evil person causing deliberately suffering for ange is very interesting opinion. We can argue endlessly whether this is because of Ryu's lack of writing abilities or something, but it is very clear this is NOT intended, and your take on battler and the moral of his actions is in clear collision with the story and writing itself. If you have, as you implied, spent analyzing the text, then you can easily notice how the entire scenario is meant to be taken as lovable and sentimental lesson about goodness of humanity. So basically, everything from Ryu's script, actual writing, the showcasing of certain emotion, the entire style of the chapter, everything disagrees with your claims. Your interpretation is strongly read between the lines while every factual evidence and sequence is against your interpretation. I value that your worldview is "properly examined" what ever that might mean, but it is in direct conflict with the story.

However, you are right about the cause of suffering: thirst for truth hurts ange, and in this way we can see hiding the truth as one cause of suffering. But as shown in episode 8 and even in the "trick" ending, the actual truth can be seen as even more painful than the tensions of the search: trick ending literally displays ange as becoming a killer, loveless machine, that doesn't care about love and every lesson entire umineko tried to teach us thus disagreeing straightforwardly with battlers view of the truth being trivial detail that should be left uncovered. Once ange agrees with battler, she moves to fight with him against her old allies. This is a fact. Even ange agrees with battler.

And lastly let me play one more recklessly low card: entire sequence of battler hiding the truth in meta never happened, as it is part of meta. The search for truth and hatred for people not revealing the truth could be seen as following: only reason battler could be seen as evil person hiding the truth is because he is not able to reach ange because amnesia, and this way entire "hiding the truth" could be seen as a metaphor for ange's search without answers. Only person in prime that doesn't tell ange the truth is eva, and as discussed multiple times before, is deliberately being a dickhead because toxic relationship/covering for herself.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Dormin

So I'll just play this card here and then we can move on with something more factual: even if you hate it, your worldview is still your opinion. I respect the fact that you clearly have strong sense of morality and have spent time constructing it, but then again, as childish it might be to point out, that is purely your own opinion. Nothing can change the fact that "right" and "wrong" are very subjective terms, and when mashed together with visions of ones morality, we have hell of a minefield of subjectivity.

Well actually no, they aren't. However the last time I tried to argue over this it was determined to be off-topic so I don't recommend we tread this road save to say that I entirely disagree with you and that this is precisely what upsets me about people lately. I will agree with you that it is childish to try to make the argument you are making, however, because it is childish to view all things as wholly and entirely subjective and equally valid.

Your interpretation is strongly read between the lines while every factual evidence and sequence is against your interpretation. I value that your worldview is "properly examined" what ever that might mean, but it is in direct conflict with the story.

No. The factual evidence shows that Battler's actions are intended to be viewed as good-hearted and good in execution. However, the author can "intend" that something be viewed a certain way and simply be wrong.

For example, Upton Sinclair intended that The Jungle be a treatise extolling the virtues of socialism, and that it be a persuasive political document convincing people to agree with his position on socialist policies. But the actual parts of the novel advocating socialism are so hackneyed, poorly-executed, and clearly pushing a message that it's nearly impossible to take them seriously. By contrast, the stark, well-researched, graphic, horrific narrative preceding it about the disgusting and inhuman conditions of the American meat-packing industry were immensely persuasive in reforming that industry.

So the novel was persuasive and politically impactful, just not in the manner that was intended. A work can state a claim and fail to do so convincingly, or accidentally state a valid claim its author didn't realize he was making, or state an immoral claim (like "slavery is justified") and have its narrative appear to support this as true. That's just how persuasive writing works. The question becomes whether the message derived from the work is actually persuasive.

Likewise, we could say that it's fairly clear what message Ryukishi intended to send through Twilight of the Golden Witch. That does not by any means mean that (1) it was the message that actually came through or was delivered in execution; and (2) that the message is in and of itself worthy of praise merely because its protagonist makes it.

Battler isn't right simply because he's Battler. Bern isn't wrong simply because she's Bern. A character is right or wrong if his or her argument is meritorious and correct or is not. And Battler is clearly at least partially in the wrong in his treatment of his sister. The question is whether he has a valid, human reason for it, or if he just thinks he knows better than her (which would make him an asshole). The former case is the one that salvages the artistic merit of the work, as the latter case creates a moral that you should listen to people who know what you need in spite of what you personally believe that you need. That's a poisonous and dangerous message to send.

On the other hand, "You should listen to other people and understand the source of their own pain and why they can't do what you want because they have things that they want that interfere with it, so you gotta ask yourself what you're willing to give on to preserve their happiness and yours" is a fairly serviceable message that makes a good deal of sense of Ange's ultimate conclusion while also making the people who manipulated her forgivable for what they've done wrong. It gives her agency as a character. But it requires that we believe certain things about the characters providing her with their viewpoints; that is, that they are not purely intellectually motivated by a desire to manipulate her emotions for a certain end, but have unstated but implied motivations that hamstring their ability to simply provide Ange with the truth that she desires.

However, you are right about the cause of suffering: thirst for truth hurts ange, and in this way we can see hiding the truth as one cause of suffering. But as shown in episode 8 and even in the "trick" ending, the actual truth can be seen as even more painful than the tensions of the search: trick ending literally displays ange as becoming a killer, loveless machine, that doesn't care about love and every lesson entire umineko tried to teach us thus disagreeing straightforwardly with battlers view of the truth being trivial detail that should be left uncovered. Once ange agrees with battler, she moves to fight with him against her old allies. This is a fact. Even ange agrees with battler.

Truth is never harmful. Truth simply exists. Interpretation, manipulation, and concealment of the truth can be harmful. This is the source of her suffering, nothing more, and none of it is her own fault.

The Trick ending is a strawman, a suggestion that Ange is such a broken person that she could become a stereotypical psychopath merely because she cannot wholly let go of her desire to know things. It's a false dichotomy created by someone seemingly incapable of making a rational contrast or explaining an emotional and intellectual contrast without resorting to extremes. Worse, it comes after a considerable body of work suggesting mostly the opposite, and providing a portrait of an author who has a considerably different worldview than the one he seemingly concludes on. It's possible this is merely because ep8 was rather seriously rushed. If the manga is any indication, an enormous amount of detail was lost (or is being added in, your choice).

Of course Ange ultimately agrees with Battler. She has no choice but to do so given the manipulations of her opinion by the author. I happen to believe that, given certain interpretations that have been presented to me, this is an extreme deviation of character for both her and her brother and that it is an intensely bitter and negative moral. I can reconcile this and save the work, but doing so requires that I find a motive for Battler that makes him not an evil patronizing dick. I can find such a motive, so I prefer it to merely dismissing the work as fundamentally ethically flawed... which I concede it might simply be.

And lastly let me play one more recklessly low card: entire sequence of battler hiding the truth in meta never happened, as it is part of meta. The search for truth and hatred for people not revealing the truth could be seen as following: only reason battler could be seen as evil person hiding the truth is because he is not able to reach ange because amnesia, and this way entire "hiding the truth" could be seen as a metaphor for ange's search without answers. Only person in prime that doesn't tell ange the truth is eva, and as discussed multiple times before, is deliberately being a dickhead because toxic relationship/covering for herself.

So if it doesn't happen it didn't mean anything and isn't indicative of anything? I'm not disputing that Battler might have behaved differently if he hadn't gotten lolamnesia, but unfortunately he did. It seems clear, however, that Battler isn't the same guy as "the guy who used to be Battler and now doesn't entirely remember being Battler." Which is fine, because he isn't that guy... but it means he's somehow divorced from Sorcerer Battler, as otherwise nothing Sorcerer Battler does makes any sense because what does this guy know about Ange?

[Dormin]

Originally Posted by Rapossu

Hey guys I have been reading this threat since… I don’t even remember, and maybe it's finally time to start posting with you guys if you don’t mind. English it's not my native language but I'll try my best here.

If the entire point of Umineko is to learn how to let go, them is the work with most buildup leading to an unbelievable letdown I have ever read. Why would an author write a story dressed as a mystery just to say in the end – sorry guys you will not have an answer, but you see, the entire point was to learn how to let go, so… just let go…..

And don’t argue that Umineko its Anges story, she doesn't even appear until almost half of the way.
The most fuckup thing in Umineko for me it’s the idea that in every episode someone help Shakanon for some reason, I mean, seriously? Everyone it’s a potential assassin because LOLGOLD? Them its better let go because the murderer in the end is everyone! I mean why not? If they are willing to face they kinsfolk crying, begging for mercy and shot them in the face for gold or whatever why we need Shanon? why would the others be considered less murderess than Shanon?
The scene can happen even without that entire Shakanon thing, someone just need to find the gold and COMMENCE BATTLE ROYA… so what's the point?
(We even see that in Lion timeline)

I can totally see why people found the ending, where the ultimate truth was not revealed, a letdown. Ryu however gave us yasu as the answer towards the gameboards, and as most of the game is based around the gameboards, most of the questions were kind of answered.

And on the related note, even if I find some unlogical things in yasu, am I the only one that actually buys people being bribeable by gold? At least the sisters need money and openly hate eachother, so I see now problem why people couldn't be bribed to be accomplices. I mean, isn't it actually semi-plausible explanation on some of the characters?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Dormin

And on the related note, even if I find some unlogical things in yasu, am I the only one that actually buys people being bribeable by gold? At least the sisters need money and openly hate eachother, so I see now problem why people couldn't be bribed to be accomplices. I mean, isn't it actually semi-plausible explanation on some of the characters?

The gold cannot be spent. The adults are all at least somewhat sophisticated business owners. A gold bar of uncertain provenance is worth about as much as a paperweight of the same mass and probably likely to land them in jail. They should be smart enough to realize this; I do not know if the author realizes this.

Now, the bank card is considerably more persuasive. The problem is, how can they be sure the thing isn't just a piece of useless plastic (or paper or whatever it is in 1986)? There are no ATMs on the island and you can't call the bank on the weekend while stranded on an island by a typhoon. And any step Yasu takes to verify its authenticity exposes her to being turned over to the authorities by her would-be accomplices.

If Yasu offered me a gold bar I'd laugh in her face and demand cash. Upfront. The gold is essentially worthless. It's not even legally her property (nor was it Kinzo's). The only value the gold has is in a sort of ep5 or ep7-TP-pre-shootings scenario where everyone basically does an Advanced Game Theory calculus and realizes that the gold is only useful if everyone keeps their damn mouths shut about it and doesn't cause a scene.

[UsagiTenpura]

Well... as I'm getting more certain that even arc 1 was written after prime and that there are hints concerning it scattered in the early arcs...

I've been thinking, in considering with arc 7's tea party. Eva didn't believe Beatrice about the switch being "off" on the bomb. Ever since arc 1 they say everyone left alive is "devoured in hell" (or something, I can't remember the wording right now) because Battler didn't believe.

Could this be more or less what happened in prime? Battler didn't believe Beatrice about the switch and the island blew up. Not going to speculate about the details of how that would've happened exactly tho, but it's likely the timing wasn't so close to midnight as it was in arc 7TP for eva.

[Dormin]

It somehow seems we have lately been the only people arguing here but oh well. Let's go.

Because I simply can't resist the subject of subjectivity, let's just say I completely disagree with you and that itself is a proof of subjective worldview. Opinions not being equal is a another way of saying "subjective views that have become generally acceptable by society are objective": I had recently similar argument about "objectively good art", but because we both seem to understand that this is an argument that goes in endless circle without becoming actually anything because opinions we can just bury this topic for now and move on.

Originally Posted by Renall

No. The factual evidence shows that Battler's actions are intended to be viewed as good-hearted and good in execution. However, the author can "intend" that something be viewed a certain way and simply be wrong.

Heh. I give you that you made an excellent example with Sinclair, but let me counter that with another example: Dawn of the living dead. I bet you are familiar but it is classical b-horror that became famous for criticism towards the society. But the thing here is that, instead of making a critical movie, Romero tried to make just a movie. The previous movies he has made have absolutely no commentary on society whatsoever, and even the commentary on Dawn was seen by couple of critics, that then convinced Romero that the movie indeed could be seen as a deeper form of art. Of course, Romero proud of the reception, decided to direct movies filled with society-criticism, but instead of being subtle the criticism was violently thrown at your face and making clear the director really didn't know what he was doing anymore. The entire concept of Dawn of the Dead being critical movie is a concept invented long afterwards its original debut, and a model example of "seeing things that are not there", because, literally you can see almost ANYTHING in any movie if you start overanalyzing. You probably already see where I am going, but let's finish this anyway. Basically, Ryu writes metaphorically, but the one overanalyzing thins are you. Trying to set characters to negative light because you can see the possibility of this, thus going against everything that was clearly meant to be written in the story, is basically wanting to see things that doesn't necessarily exist. I guess bernkastel or erika said it: love can make you see things that don't exist. Now I doubt you have love towards the subject at hand, but you can probably see what I am trying to pull here. If you didn't get the intended expression on the chapter, then, shit mate, maybe you and you alone twist things, as I happen to remember a few post back, I am not alone on this subject.

Truth is never harmful. Truth only exists.

Once again, you are logically correct. But at the same way, guns are never harmful. They just exist. While even that is true, it is just once again looking too far into things. I can say every serial killer on the planet was not at fault, because ultimately, it was as much their mothers fault for giving birth to them etc. etc.

Manipulation of author

I just play that you mean Ryu here and not featherine, even though featherine seems to be very much metaphor for ryu thus making difference between them is pretty pointless. So you are saying, that the characters in the story are forced to act because the author wanted them to do so? Well shit, wouldn't that mean nothing that happens in the story is actually worth arguing over as none of that happened on the free will but because author manipulated them? Are you saying that characters that were written by Ryu should have acted somehow differently, because at the same time, they were not allowed to be written by anyone? I think this goes just too meta and basically just leads to argument about existence of free will. Let's just... Not go there, if you would.

So if it doesn't happen it didn't mean anything and isn't indicative of anything?

I think you misunderstood me here, so let me sum up the previous: even if we don't take the meta literally it can be seen as metaphor for different things, objects, ideals, etc. etc. so basically the fact that meta-battler didn't tell the truth to ange only means that ange saw the search for the truth impossible as there wasn't anyone guiding her towards the truth, meaning that the search hurt her. I bet you can see many other interpretations of the meta, but I find this to be pretty sensible and in-line with the story.

If your morals see battler as the bad guy for harming ange, then, nice morals, I guess. I agree maybe things could have been resolved more peacefully and battler and ange could have discussed the matter of the truth that was important to ange, but in reality discussions like the one we are having are almost absolutely the indicator of persons worldview and what they consider to be morally right.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Dormin

Once again, you are logically correct. But at the same way, guns are never harmful. They just exist. While even that is true, it is just once again looking too far into things. I can say every serial killer on the planet was not at fault, because ultimately, it was as much their mothers fault for giving birth to them etc. etc.

Truth doesn't have agency. People have agency. Truth cannot be blamed for anything because Truth does not do anything. And yes, the same argument would apply to a weapon; weapons are just objects and value-neutral; the decision of an agent to create or keep them is the moral act. We might say building a nuclear weapon is irresponsible because the weapon is "dangerous;" while true, the weapon is not immoral merely because it is inherently dangerous, but rather the person who built it is irresponsibly unethical for building something that is inherently dangerous. If it goes off, it's not the bomb's fault; it's the guy who made it even knowing it might go off.

I just play that you mean Ryu here and not featherine, even though featherine seems to be very much metaphor for ryu thus making difference between them is pretty pointless. So you are saying, that the characters in the story are forced to act because the author wanted them to do so? Well shit, wouldn't that mean nothing that happens in the story is actually worth arguing over as none of that happened on the free will but because author manipulated them? Are you saying that characters that were written by Ryu should have acted somehow differently, because at the same time, they were not allowed to be written by anyone? I think this goes just too meta and basically just leads to argument about existence of free will. Let's just... Not go there, if you would.

You're missing the point. Characters don't have free will in a story, but they can have agency appropriate to their characterization as the author permits. If they are made to behave in a manner which conflicts with their characterization, one could say that the character's behavior is being "forced," as opposed to flowing naturally with the scenario.

An example of this would be to look at a scene and say "this character gets into a fight with his friend here." From a narrative standpoint, this might make sense. On the other hand, if the character is a strict pacifist, then he wouldn't get into a fight with his friend. A better approach to this scenario is to set the scene for the confrontation and then see where the preexisting characterization of both characters actually takes the scene. For example, perhaps instead of a fight they argue, but the pacifist refuses to rise to provocations and the friend mocks him and leaves. In a way, you still had a "fight," but it fits how the characters would actually behave rather than merely making them act the way the narrative seems to be dragging them.

I believe the characterization of a large number of characters in ep8 is at odds with their prior portrayal, in a fairly weird fashion. I also see them occasionally engaging in pointless or unhelpful actions despite acting as if their behavior is entirely reasonable. This behavior must be reconciled. I think there are ways to do it, but nobody really wants to investigate them because they don't see the problem that is clearly there.

In the alternative, ep8 was simply rushed, and the characterization suffered as a result and will be fixed for the manga, which has made several such changes already. It's possible the "proper" version of ep8 is something we simply haven't seen yet.

[Dormin]

Truth cannot be blamed for anything because Truth does not do anything. And yes, the same argument would apply to a weapon; weapons are just objects and value-neutral; the decision of an agent to create or keep them is the moral act

Yes. But saying this maybe you didn't quite catch my drift: truth itself doesn't harm people, but the people affected by the truth decided whether the affect has been harmful, so to say, bit like bullets: in no situation person getting shot decide the situation to be neutral and non-harmful. Thus saying truth should be revealed because "it itself is neutral" is wrong, as even if the truth is neutral, it can still hurt the persons affected. This is the pillar of the logic behind battler and pretty much everyone's actions concerning the truth. Denying this fact is not possible. Ange itself decided after hearing the truth that the truth was seen as negative. It is a fact. Logical neutrality has no place in here.

I believe the characterization of a large number of characters in ep8 is at odds with their prior portrayal, in a fairly weird fashion. I also see them occasionally engaging in pointless or unhelpful actions despite acting as if their behavior is entirely reasonable. This behavior must be reconciled. I think there are ways to do it, but nobody really wants to investigate them because they don't see the problem that is clearly there.

You are pretty much on point here, characters (like kinzo) acting illogical, but as you yourself clearly stated, you see the reasons for this in the general direction of the episode.

So, to sum up, you disagree with characterization and how people act towards ange, because it is not logical, but at the same time accept it was intentionally written so and serves purpose for the story? Basically, few posts back, you claimed that mixing opinions into arguments is childish way of arguing, but so far the entire concept of you fighting against things that CLEARLY are meant to happen in a certain way with no indications otherwise (except your own moral judgement), doesn't it basically mean that the entire disagreeing with the ep 8 is, indeed, your opinion, and your argument "because my morality says otherwise". I am willing to give you that people like kinzo act unlogically because story demands so, but then again, it is part of the story and for example I fail to see any malice or unlogicality in battlers or anges actions during episode 8. I can also give you that hiding the truth is bad, but if the harm done by revealing the truth is worse, every action taken in episode 8 is justified.

The fact that entire scriptwriting backs me up is, from my point of view, quite clear example of you fighting against something because you do not agree with the characters and their morals. How is this not an opinion?

[SonozakiUshiromiya]

A problem I(and apparently Renall) have with the 'intended' view of Battler/family is precisely while it is drilled over and over that basically 'feelings should be understood', that is side stepped for the person who the lesson is supposed to be imparted to(Ange) while(and this part is actually something that hasn't been rehashed 50 times) being used amongst the teachers themselves, specifically with Eva. Battler and co. allude to Ange and Eva's possible suffering, but with Ange it really doesn't go beyond: "It was hard and you feel bad, but you' shouldn't feel bad." With Eva it's more: "It was hard because of x and you feel bad because you did x, but you shouldn't feel that way because of x that we totally get."

They acknowledge Eva's pain because of actual factors they know(Ange's distrust; lack of support; pain of familial loss) that are moreso emotional(instead of 'wow, you had NO cash on-hand?; those police interrogations sure were tough, sis; damn noisy reporters; SO MANY MEANIES'). They listen to her chastise herself, do some damn reading between the lines and respond with that she shouldn't because it's understood that she did do her best with a bad hand. They know that Eva acted terribly, feels terribly, and couldn't do better.
They assume Ange's(and we have 'wow, you had NO friends on call?; those accusations of the fam sure were tough, lil sis; damn noisy schoolgirls; SO MANY MEANIES'). They talk at her about what she should do, but not to her. They don't think of why Ange goes along with moreso hurtful thoughts from her viewpoint, like how Kinzo is 'some shut-in jackass who beats everyone because foreigner fetish' instead of 'a overtly affectionate jokester who can be easily misunderstood, especially by someone very young'. Or that a bunch of random and bored fuckers went wild misunderstanding a (possible) horrible accident/series of fuckups(not including murders); she goes with something sinister happened(planned or not) and a bunch of random fuckers are dolling out ideas that reallly hurt her(lol Kyrie's shoot 'em up roundup best westerns by an eastern yakuzas always da top killas) instead of ideas that don't hurt as much(Eva's mean old skanky ass peaced all of em I knew that bitch was no good and never was probably getting real wet from all that money and dead bodies). They assumed she felt like shit because everyone she loved is dead, and took in shitty ideas from people she doesn't really know well because she didn't know better.
Maybe it's because Ange yelled her pain out in a sometimes 6, sometimes 18 body which at best, would have at times kept her at the lowest age wise or equal to the not-the absolute lowest age wise and Eva cried in the body of a woman in her late 40s at the earliest?

-Basically, they don't have to leap with Eva, but some skipping together is done at least. They could try to leap with Ange, but they rush on ahead and expect some catching up on her part.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Dormin

Yes. But saying this maybe you didn't quite catch my drift: truth itself doesn't harm people, but the people affected by the truth decided whether the affect has been harmful, so to say, bit like bullets: in no situation person getting shot decide the situation to be neutral and non-harmful. Thus saying truth should be revealed because "it itself is neutral" is wrong, as even if the truth is neutral, it can still hurt the persons affected. This is the pillar of the logic behind battler and pretty much everyone's actions concerning the truth. Denying this fact is not possible. Ange itself decided after hearing the truth that the truth was seen as negative. It is a fact. Logical neutrality has no place in here.

They had no way of knowing that. And since we never got to see it ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether the reaction was appropriate. It could all be forced bullshit, how can we tell if we don't get to judge it ourselves? It's a cheap way to garner a particular reaction without actually having to defend its rational coherency. "Well whatever it was, it must've been pretty messed up, just like everybody said!" is not particularly useful.

Also maybe it's none of our business how Ange reacts.

So, to sum up, you disagree with characterization and how people act towards ange, because it is not logical, but at the same time accept it was intentionally written so and serves purpose for the story? Basically, few posts back, you claimed that mixing opinions into arguments is childish way of arguing, but so far the entire concept of you fighting against things that CLEARLY are meant to happen in a certain way with no indications otherwise (except your own moral judgement), doesn't it basically mean that the entire disagreeing with the ep 8 is, indeed, your opinion, and your argument "because my morality says otherwise". I am willing to give you that people like kinzo act unlogically because story demands so, but then again, it is part of the story and for example I fail to see any malice or unlogicality in battlers or anges actions during episode 8. I can also give you that hiding the truth is bad, but if the harm done by revealing the truth is worse, every action taken in episode 8 is justified.

The fact that entire scriptwriting backs me up is, from my point of view, quite clear example of you fighting against something because you do not agree with the characters and their morals. How is this not an opinion?

I have absolutely no idea what you're driving at here and I'm not sure you do either. Can you restate your point in a manner that makes a bit more sense? I'm not sure I even agree with your characterizations of my arguments, but I'm not fully clear from these paragraphs what those characterizations actually are.

[Dormin]

A problem I(and apparently Renall) have with the 'intended' view of Battler/family is precisely while it is drilled over and over that basically 'feelings should be understood', that is side stepped for the person who the lesson is supposed to be imparted to(Ange) while(and this part is actually something that hasn't been rehashed 50 times) being used amongst the teachers themselves, specifically with Eva. Battler and co. allude to Ange and Eva's possible suffering, but with Ange it really doesn't go beyond: "It was hard and you feel bad, but you' shouldn't feel bad." With Eva it's more: "It was hard because of x and you feel bad because you did x, but you shouldn't feel that way because of x that we totally get."

I can (at least partially) agree with this.

The thing is, I understand the characters could have treated ange more understandably.

However I must disagree that the fact that they didn't is itself "evil" or "bad scriptwriting", as every character honestly tried to do what was the best thing to do towards ange. The part where my and renalls view don't match is that renall believes this detail makes for example battler bad person and that the episode should be "fixed", as I personally don't see any kind of breaks in logic: even if the characters never fully understood ange and her pain it is not an error that should be fixed in any way

[Dormin]

Originally Posted by Renall

They had no way of knowing that. And since we never got to see it ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether the reaction was appropriate. It could all be forced bullshit, how can we tell if we don't get to judge it ourselves? It's a cheap way to garner a particular reaction without actually having to defend its rational coherency. "Well whatever it was, it must've been pretty messed up, just like everybody said!" is not particularly useful.

If we suppose the truth is someone killing people and these people being close relatives/persons to ange, then yes, they did have a way of knowing that. The thing is that every character believed they knew what was best for ange: maybe you can view this as negative thing, deciding for others and all that, but it was their attempt at doing something right. It is not bad scriptwriting or shitty characterization. It itself doesn't make people covering the truth "bad" or "unlogical".

I have absolutely no idea what you're driving at here and I'm not sure you do either. Can you restate your point in a manner that makes a bit more sense?

-You think people bad because no truth
-You still accept it was a part of scriptwriting and Ryu's message to us
-You think opinions bad
-Your argument being "it doesn't match with my morality"

I think the central dilemma in here is that you have very strong sense of what the "correct" moral base is. Therefore you decide not to accept characterization that goes against that and keep attacking it, thinking there is something broken with the story. Or have I misunderstood something?

[AuraTwilight]

If we suppose the truth is someone killing people and these people being close relatives/persons to ange, then yes, they did have a way of knowing that. The thing is that every character believed they knew what was best for ange: maybe you can view this as negative thing, deciding for others and all that, but it was their attempt at doing something right. It is not bad scriptwriting or shitty characterization. It itself doesn't make people covering the truth "bad" or "unlogical".

That's not the point. The point is they have no way of seeing, evaluating, judging, or assessing Ange's life beyond 1986. They are missing 12 years of information and judging her entirely on one event. The Rokkenjima Incident was just the START, and they don't know SHIT about everything that came out because of that, like the Witch Hunter fandom.

-You think people bad because no truth
-You still accept it was a part of scriptwriting and Ryu's message to us
-You think opinions bad
-Your argument being "it doesn't match with my morality"

As someone who shares Renall's exact opinion on this issue, all four of these points are completely incorrect and patronizingly misleading.