[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

The bomb doesn't kill Battler AFAIK

It does. Remember, Beatrice said she'd kill him in EP4, but she wasn't there and everyone else (other than Battler himself) in the island was dead.

We also got a red for Battler's death in EP8. So, you could technically say Ushiromiya Battler died because of that bomb, since ultimately it left no evidence about his survival and since Battler lost his memories for around 12 years which ended up with another person being "born" (i.e. Hachijō Tōya) after Battler "disappeared".

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

So, was that really the answer to the ''Who am I''? Was will right?

''The culprit who can kill everyone at midnight''

Can someone explain this answer? I am pretty sure she said there is no one here but you, but I am here and I'm about to kill you, who am I....isn't a culprit a person? Or does a culprit not have to be? Like, uh, tripping and piercing your head on a conveniently placed rock or getting blunt trama....

Even if you go just from Beatrice's red, the possibility of any person being present to kill Battler is completely ruled out from the beginning, right? All of Will's answers are figurative; the "culprit" he's talking about is just the "something" that always mops up everyone who manages to survive until midnight.

[AuraTwilight]

Not really. Unless you call a hightened amount of stress hormones leading to uncontrolled psychotic behaviour something like mind control.

The series calls it mind control a few times, but regardless the point I was making is that no court on earth would treat these people as responsible for their own actions. Satoko has no awareness of what she did and everyone else hallucinates like hell and bases their actions off of an inability to tell fantasy from reality and think other people are out to get them.

But I'll agree that Ryûkishi's idea of morally just behaviour might be a little unconventional. Though he's not really alone among writers when he portrays the murder of "sinful people" as something that can be forgiven...it seems kinda off when he tries to draw this huge moral diagram of right and wrong and then still applying fairy tale morals to his story.

There's a difference between forgiving people and simply not labeling their actions as a sin in the first place.

The bomb doesn't kill Battler AFAIK

It does in EP4, just like Eva killed Battler in EP3. Battler may survive in reality but that doesn't mean anything about what transpires in fictional realities.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Even if you go just from Beatrice's red, the possibility of any person being present to kill Battler is completely ruled out from the beginning, right? All of Will's answers are figurative; the "culprit" he's talking about is just the "something" that always mops up everyone who manages to survive until midnight.

You could call whoever flipped the switch the "culprit" who kills him, even if they are already dead by the time the mansion goes kablooey. In episode 4, it'd be Yasu of course.

EDIT:
Then again, it's pretty much impossible to make literal sense of: "You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you." So what's she really saying? Is it really just a stupid riddle for "explosives"? Maybe the answer really is just "Beatrice", who as Yasu's legacy both exists and does not exist at the same time.

[Used Can]

It sounds like proxy killing.

Yasu activated the bomb. So, even if she's dead, she killed Battler.
As for why she said "I'm here," it could refer to the rules that Beatrice is comprised of.
The bomb always going off could be one of these rules.
So, if the bomb is active, you could say Beatrice is there.

That's how I see it.

[AuraTwilight]

It's probably all of the above. "Bombs" makes sense for a mystery-solving detective, but "Beatrice as a concept" fits for the emotional purpose it serves in the narrative. If Battler can realize that it's a bomb, but INSTEAD answer "Beatrice did it, even if she's not a person", then he both understands Beatrice and protects her truth from the world.

[Wanderer]

Yeah, I think this is it.

[Renall]

Right well, let's see now...

Spoiler for Yasu's Alleged Depth:

Originally Posted by Sherringford

You are missing the point of why people didn't like it as well. People liked her because they like fun badass characters. If you take away their badassery to give them development, yes it makes them more complex characters. But sometimes people don't want complex. They want stuff blowing up.

Well I don't, uh, I don't think that's what anybody said. Least of all me.

So when people say that chiru assassinated her character, what they mean is "Chiru took away the aspects I enjoyed from her character and gave her depth. The depth is well done, but really it's not something I enjoy and it takes away what I enjoyed before, which was the thing I enjoyed the most about the novel."

Which is a fair point really. No one is saying it was badly done, just that it made them stop caring about the character. Which...is just an opinion.

Well I'm saying that!

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Actually, yes, some people are.

Right, exactly.

I am of the opinion that the depth was extremely poorly done. That is of course an opinion and AuraTwilight happens to disagree with me, but we're pretty much hopelessly biased in polar directions so you can basically assume we hold opposite opinions there.

Spoiler for On Being Batshit Insane OR NOT:

Originally Posted by goldendust

Despair about her/his life, wanting to entrust her/his and everyone's fate to the roulette to create a miracle she/he wanted. Something to that effect.

Which I believe was hinted at in the tea party of E7 when Bern showed Ange the "truth".

Except that this motive simply doesn't make sense. If you can name even a single person she would not want to kill - and I can - it doesn't make sense. If you can name a single person she would feel guilty about getting involved for no good reason - and I can - she has to have some way to justify that. "Meh" is not sufficiently rational or even irrational justification. You would need to be a complete sociopath to even entertain this idea as making any kind of internal sense.

It is understandable, we had two other girls (Maria,Ange) to explain this appeal to use imagination to deal with harsh reality. Even to a further extent with Eva with her own young self.

Just that Yasu takes a step further by actaully playing those roles. That is where he/she is different from the rest.

Um... did she? Prove it. I certainly can't. Oh we've got some stories. That's about all we've got. Having a strong imagination and "playing roles" on the same level Maria and Ange did doesn't really seem all that implausible. Going beyond that actually seems entirely too far. The few examples we appear to have can be explained away with specific motivations for doing it at that moment (pranks, helping out Jessica).

Originally Posted by haguruma

While we're there, they also updated one line in Eva-Beato's web of red. The line 以上、15人は死亡。(This means nothing less than that 15 people have died.) is no longer represented in red (probably because ShKanon is among those "15").

I'm curious why this would be necessary since, as far as the rules are established, it seems entirely possible to state that sentence in red per the bullshit rules he's working under.

Spoiler for On The Moral Implications of Yasu Culpritryhood:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The thing is, Yasu doesn't have a motive for killing anyone. There's not a court on this earth that'd convict her even if she confessed to it.

A Japanese court would. Of course, she'd have to survive first.

Originally Posted by Kealym

Also, whenever I see "Yasu wasn't the kind of girl who could kill in cold blood", I sort of read it as, instead, "But Kyrie, now there's a cold blooded bitch," and it's just ... I don't see Yasu as any less capable of murder than anybody else on the island. At my kindest, I can't go any easier than Even if she did not wish to kill people, she had fully committed to the possibility of doing so at the 1986 conference.

That's ridiculous. Why? What possibility would there be? Why would she go in expecting to do that only to go about it in such a circuitous way? What threat did she perceive from other individuals, if that's her motivation for expecting violence? Why? Why? Why?

Besides, is it not possible that nobody was actually killed "in cold blood?" What if every single killing had a justification that made rational sense to the person doing the killing, regardless of whether they were actually correct? See the example of Kyrie killing George-as-culprit and Eva killing her believing she's the culprit. That's hardly cold-blooded, at least on Kyrie and Eva's parts.

Also, I hate to use this comparison, because the Hinamizawa Syndrome was a factor there, but the author's other work had a crap ton of "Yeah, you'd be surprised how far a person will go when they're on their edge" <_<

There's a reason the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Extraordinary claims merit extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim "people will do crazy things when pushed to the edge" it falls to you to allege:

• Which people?
• What's the edge?
• How do they get pushed there and how do you know they got pushed that far?
• How do you know what crazy things they'll do at that point?

The notion that any person would mass murder given sufficient justification is facially absurd. There are people who would not even behave aggressively under any circumstances, and there are people who would kill just about anybody if they felt it would benefit them. It's your burden as "prosecutor" of a culprit to show which sort of person they are.

Originally Posted by haguruma

But I'll agree that Ryûkishi's idea of morally just behaviour might be a little unconventional. Though he's not really alone among writers when he portrays the murder of "sinful people" as something that can be forgiven...it seems kinda off when he tries to draw this huge moral diagram of right and wrong and then still applying fairy tale morals to his story.

Who was sinful again in Umineko? Oh, sure, their sins were laid bare for us and they were fairly dramatic, but overall they were not particularly heinous sins. It's not like the adults were - at least in the fictions - engaged in active evil like the villains of Higurashi.

So they were sinners, what of it? So are you, so am I. Nobody's justified murdering us just for those sins.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

On the other hand, unlike Shion and Takano and all those Higurashi examples, Yasu is being glamorized here. She's being treated as beautiful and pitiable, someone we should understand, and that the truth of what happened on those days being covered up as a moral good.

Beatrice is trying to take credit for this crime, and we're supposed to pretty much exonerate her from it. What could be the reasoning behind this other than "She didn't do it"?

The alternative is that Ryukishi is telling us that serial killers are totally fine as long as they feel bad about it or if they were sad. And that's fucked up to unbelieveable degrees.

This, Jesus Christ, the moral narrative is absolutely indefensible if she's the culprit. To believe this requires you to posit the moral standpoint that evil won and it's okay and that Battler and Beatrice are good people for wanting to cover up that truth.

It doesn't work. It is, at least, marginally defensible if Yasu is covering for a true culprit and Battler is respecting her wishes. It still sort of makes Battler an immoral actor, but I'll give him a pass because love or whatever bullshit. And if Battler was the culprit, then his actions being immoral sort of don't seem that problematic anymore anyway!

And finally, as it's somewhat expected of me at this point...

Spoiler for Shooting The Finger At Armchair Detectives Everywhere:

[Sherringford]

Okay, let me not project my opinions so much then.

Personally I think the depth was well done in order to tell the story that the author wanted to tell. It crafted a multi-layered character that changed upon multiple readings of the story. My problem with that is that the change was done for the worse. I don't have many problems with the way he did it really, I have problems with the fact he did it at all. I don't like the Beatrice transformation.

I'll admit that I'm one of the people who simply wanted a good antagonist and she went from that to being a rather boring character. I wanted her to be a Michael Bay movie. I wanted her to be an interesting character that helped to tell a fun story.

Her depth was well done on a technical level because it told the story the author wanted to tell. But I just...didn't like that story. I think it was a bad idea to go down that road. To sum up, my problem isn't with his execution of the Beatrice depth. It's with the concept.

Then again, that is mostly based on my opinion. That's not one of the things I think the author fucked up. I think it was a conscious choice, just...not really one that I liked too much. I mean, I can come up with a few valid reasons why maybe the depth wasn't a good idea...but in the end it comes down to "...and I don't like it!" and I'm pretty aware that the reason I have an issue with it isn't because of its misuse of literary techniques or anything like that.

My dislike for it is much more childish than that. I just don't like it.

[AuraTwilight]

I wanted her to be a Michael Bay movie.

If I didn't love you so much I would've stopped reading here.

Someone draw a Beato-bot. Transmeidos, More than meets the eye.

My dislike for it is much more childish than that. I just don't like it.

Atleast you're honest about it. Honestly, there's a lot of people who think that Beatrice's characterization somehow is objectively bad. Which is....retarded.

[Renall]

To adequately express my utter distaste for the whole affair would require faculties I do not really possess at 4am, but the essential summation is thus:

I despise it for taking a strong active female character and shifting her into a passive characterization. I hate it not because I hate passive female characters (that ship has so long sailed that it's run into an iceberg and been lost with all hands), but because of how brutal and callous the author was in building up my expectations and bringing me into an appreciation of a character he had no intention of keeping in a strong role.

He first literally makes Beatrice passive, then "reveals" the person behind her as also remarkably passive (despite hinting otherwise, thus teasing me further), and at last turns her into an appendage of (and, if I may be so bold, basically subordinate to) Battler. And I don't mean in the sense that it's all in Battler's head or whatever, I actually don't have a problem with that.

The strength of Beatrice as a character is her flamboyant, arrogant, controlling presence and her position as essentially an "alpha female" who wields her feminine authority both against Battler's masculine posturing (most of which is empty, as he has nothing to back it up intellectually) and against the already headstrong female figures of the Ushiromiya family. She's adept at taking on all comers and seems at times even cavalier against the people who are in actual positions of power over her (like Lambda and Bern). At the same time, she can overextend herself and show vulnerability, but it's the sort of vulnerability that's a bright glowing sphere on a giant rampaging killborg in a video game.

I don't care that she's occasionally hinted that she's not as awesome as she thinks she is. Being not quite as awesome as she thinks she is is part of what makes her awesome. All the "humanizing" I need is a development of that imperfect swagger as her creator's ideal. If all I ever saw of Yasu was the imaginative prankster, I might actually be somewhat satisfied with it. Having said that, even then I found myself annoyed with the forced shift of her character into an effectively passive role. Just drained the life from the whole thing.

None of the "depth" as allegedly put forth in ep7 and on can live up to that character. Or rather, if it could, it wasn't done. Therefore, the development was poor. You can't take me from one of the strongest female presences I've read in years to someone incapable of making a telephone call and tell me that's anything but bullshit.

So to hell with that and to hell with Yasu.

[cronnoponno]

I was pretty disappointed that they totally boggled down her character over the episodes, but I was overall okay with it.

I mean, I agree with Sherringford, I liked Beatrice as the almighty antagonist that was just super-bitch-awesome, and then it felt like she just got more watered down and watered down, but they did it for a good reason and I have no problems with it.


That being said, Episode 6 was pretty much complete when she crashed the wedding.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Renall

He first literally makes Beatrice passive, then "reveals" the person behind her as also remarkably passive (despite hinting otherwise, thus teasing me further), and at last turns her into an appendage of (and, if I may be so bold, basically subordinate to) Battler. And I don't mean in the sense that it's all in Battler's head or whatever, I actually don't have a problem with that.

I'd say putting Battler in a position of power wasn't that much of a cool idea either. How to put it.... EP5's ???? Tea Party was amazing as hell. It was, perhaps, one of the best parts in the entire story, but I think Battler was always at his best whenever he's chasing after the truth than being the one who knew it. I'm not saying this because Battler was particularly a good detective, but because despite all the shit he went through, he was extremely charismatic. This is why even though Will was an amazing detective, I couldn't enjoy him as much as Ushiromiya "Slice off your cowtits and make me a sandwich" Battler.

Another thing I think Chiru lacked was Beato and Battler's dynamics - which, I believe, was the soul of Umineko for the first 4 episodes along with the gameboards. There was nothing even remotely close in Chiru to make up for that. Battler and Erika's dynamics cannot even begin to be compared to those. The gameboards in Chiru I think were rather lame too.

[UsagiTenpura]

@ LyricalAura
Well my problem is that "you're all alone".
If we're going to accept personified as Beatrice objects as something not "alone"...(yet I am here) I can see the next step being...
"Well they did tell you that Shannon and Kanon were furniture since the beginning".
Atop of it bombs are means of murder, not culprits. The very question "who am I?" does not apply to inanimate objects.
I can see saying that Beatrice is the character tips that declares Battler dead next...

Actually red dodging using Shkanontrice's status as furniture rather then human to solve that "who am I question" still feels more satisfying to me then the "Beatrice = bomb" answer.

Sorry about not quoting but its already a bunch of pages back.

@ Renall
Ive been thinking this for a long time, but I really have to ask, why do you even continue to keep an interest on Umineko? You only seem to despise it now yet you remain one of the most active posters, so I really have to ask.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

@ Renall
Ive been thinking this for a long time, but I really have to ask, why do you even continue to keep an interest on Umineko? You only seem to despise it now yet you remain one of the most active posters, so I really have to ask.

I think he's just really tsun for it.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

@ Renall
Ive been thinking this for a long time, but I really have to ask, why do you even continue to keep an interest on Umineko? You only seem to despise it now yet you remain one of the most active posters, so I really have to ask.

I agree entirely with his opinion of Beatrice and just about everything in umineko in general. I still enjoy trying to figure parts of it and debating in these forums is actually more fun than the work in itself.

e- What Im saying is, you might not have liked how the series developed, but you still have enough interest in it to argue with people about points and try to find out more of what might or might not have happened.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Except that this motive simply doesn't make sense. If you can name even a single person she would not want to kill - and I can - it doesn't make sense. [...]
You would need to be a complete sociopath to even entertain this idea as making any kind of internal sense.

I think you are trying to hard to apply your idea of sense and reason to a fictional work that tries to aim into a different direction. When does a fictional motive actually makes sense, if it made perfect sense it would in most cases be rather easy to guess or be, simply put, boring. Most mysteries aim for a over-the-top motive...and because you already said you don't particularly like mysteries in general, this makes it kind of hard to discuss this point when you are arguing from a completely different direction.
It is like arguing about the existence of god from a scientific and a religious PoV...we can both point out or arguments, but in the end you can not join these two without loosing some of both.

Most of the classics and many of the revival stories that are popular in Japan right now feature over the top solutions to the actual motive. It is not about it being a realistic motive, it is about being a motive that you can guess.
Considering how Beatrice was constructed as a facade (and it was clear she was one) you could easily entertain the thought that the true person behind her had to be the opposite of everything that Beatrice was. This is not necessarily realistic but it is possible to construct.

So they were sinners, what of it? So are you, so am I. Nobody's justified murdering us just for those sins.

Regarding the justified killing of sinners I was talking about Higurashi (especially the death of Teppei and Rina). In Umineko's case I think there is no such moral confusion...killing IS considered bad, it is rather the question wether it is possible to forget doubts and grudges in favor of being able to live on...
Generally in Umineko murder is considered evil...which is why I find it less morally confused.

Originally Posted by Used Can

Another thing I think Chiru lacked was Beato and Battler's dynamics - which, I believe, was the soul of Umineko for the first 4 episodes along with the gameboards. There was nothing even remotely close in Chiru to make up for that. Battler and Erika's dynamics cannot even begin to be compared to those. The gameboards in Chiru I think were rather lame too.

I would dare to disagree. I found the dynamics between Battler and Erika delightfully antagonistic...there was not even a hint of friendship between them, it was pure goal-driven antagonsim. Between Beato and Battler there was always this sexual tension that drove their contest forward and while I found it entertaining I never actually bought her act of being this "witch who destroys love". There was always this underlying theme that was fully established to make the truth behind Beato guessable...but with Erika, she was just vile, mean and hellbent on reaching her goal.
I found her perfectly entertaining as "the detective" of the story and I would have loved for her to play a greater part in it all...but well.

Of course the relationship between Battler (give me TEH truth) and Beato (don't find me-find me-don't find me-find me) was a completely different one than that of Team Solve it vs. Team Hide it in Chiru. Trying to compare them is difficult in itself I think.

[Used Can]

I'm not saying I disliked Erika. Hell, by Chiru... funnily enough... the only characters I ended up liking were Erika and Bern. Erika far above anyone else - especially after the pirate scene.

As for her dynamics with Battler I'm not saying I thought they were bad, just that they weren't nearly as entertaining as Battler and Beato's dynamics. Of course, that's just my opinion as pretty much most of my criticism in Umineko. Mind you, I do think that doing a 180º on Beato in Chiru was a terrible idea and bad writing, but again, that's just another opinion.

[Kani]

Can anyone explain the nature of the gold truth? I remember battler used it to prove Kinzo is dead. And Will used it many times as well. I was thinking in the case Will uses it it might mean the people have been bribed with gold to make up a fake truth. But that doesn't make sense for the case with Battler. Are they 2 different kinds of truth or the same?

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Kani

Can anyone explain the nature of the gold truth? I remember battler used it to prove Kinzo is dead. And Will used it many times as well. I was thinking in the case Will uses it it might mean the people have been bribed with gold to make up a fake truth. But that doesn't make sense for the case with Battler. Are they 2 different kinds of truth or the same?

In my opinion the gold truth is a truth you create to make someone happy, or protect someone, or to hide a painful truth. I think it fits in just about every case.