[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[AuraTwilight]

One thing I noticed when reading the summaries is that in Kanon's memory of Kinzo in episode 6 he describes Kinzo in an almost identical way to episode 8. "In private he didn't have to preserve that air of majesty and his face would turn unbelievably childish". Anyone else notice that?

I did.

I disagree. Battler's position isn't a social one, but a political one. He is Rokkenjima's dictator, and controls an entire army. He uses that army to protect his ideological standpoint, despite Ange's wishes.

He isn't arguing that Ange shouldn't see the truth. He is using all his influence, all his allies, all his power to forcibly stop her. That's a political philosophy, not a social one. He is advocating a view and imposing them on others.

He is using his powers to maintain the reign of fantasy, even if he has to force people to accept it.

You're right; and I concede this point on the part of Battler, in that he is blinded, mislead, or otherwise does the wrong thing with the interests of his family in mind (this is a character flaw played up since Episode 1, folks), and I agree that the way Battler behaved is bullshit.

I'm just not conceding that Battler represents Ryukishi here; Battler is being used to represent the opposite extreme; Erika brought up earlier that love can keep things from being seen, but this has never really been demonstrated until now.

Ange is being given the options of seeing the truth at the expense of love, seeing love at the expense of truth, or holding onto both (which is subtly implied is the option she chooses in the good ending, considering how you interpret that diary thing).

I'm rather fond of the idea that Ange wrote EP8; Hachijou certainly didn't. If she did write it, and Battler is being used to represent her idealism and naivete, then it goes a long way to excuse Meta-Battler's actions.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Granted, but the general statement is a rebuttal to how "the truth is the only thing that matters." He's strawmaning the opposite point here.

No one said that the truth is the "only" thing that matters. Erika was just making a point of how knowing the truth is the most important thing for her. And personally I can't see anything wrong with that. People have different priorities, if one's priority is knowledge over happiness who is Battler or anyone else to judge that?
In this case we are talking about one person trying to know something not pushing the truth onto others.

That being said Battler's answer was questionable in its core in my opinion, regardless of the situation.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Erika's not TOTALLY the bad guy in EP8, but putting that aside, she also came to an understanding of Battler's and Beatrice's worldview and didn't seem to be as critical of it as she should be. Erika is right in this situation, though.

The point is that Ange has the right to choose. Even Will acknowledged that and no one's getting on his ass. WTF?

Well I'm really not sure she wasn't depicted as the bad guy in this episode. Granted that I acknowledge that she was the one in the right in that situation, that's just my opinion. In the end Erika was depicted as a ravager who destroyed the golden land and killed all of its inhabitants. This story didn't depict that as a good thing.

I can acknowledge that that Erika represents one side of Ange, and specifically her side that wants to know the truth at all costs. But that was still depicted as evil, especially in the "bad end" when that side transforms her into a cold blooded killer.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Bear in mind that this is a Battler who knows things we do not. While I see your point, we can't fully judge his actions without knowing what he's hiding. This is an issue all on it's own, but putting that aside, Battler's final game isn't like...the slightest bit believable. It was so egregiously just a show to put Ange's heart at rest that I don't think we can really accuse him of trying to DECEIVE Ange.

Yes, it was wrong of Battler to not respect Ange's decision, but this is nowhere near comparable to maliciously hiding government secrets to dupe the sheeple and shit; come on now.

You need to understand that I'm making a meta analysis here. Most stories aren't just stories, they have a message that the author tries to convey. That usually is being achieved by presenting a certain situation and by making the characters acting in a certain way.

Which brings us to the next point:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

PS In fairness, if EP8 is being written by Ange as suspected, then Meta-Battler in this context would be the personification of the part of her that wants to believe in the golden "everyone is nice" scenario.

I acknowledge that, and I'm glad to see you also reached that conclusion, except I don't think that Ange actually wrote that, she simply thought it in my opinion.

What I don't agree with is the idea this is just some stuff a character made in a story. The themes of "learning the truth is meaningless" and of "there are things more important than the truth" are too pervasive and too much widespread. In my opinion this is a clear message from Ryuukishi, this is what he wanted to convey in the final chapter of Umineko, especially considering how in the end he creates the situation where the reader is made to choose between "truth" and "magic".

Originally Posted by haguruma

But like Aura Twilight already explained there is a big difference between political and social philosophies...you are comparing pears with apples here.

Where is the similarity between a dictator hiding terrible government secrets about weapons of massdestruction and death facilities and a brother who just wants his sister to remember the good points of her family instead of their terrible last moments.

In knowing that a dictator is hiding weapons of massdestruction and kills everyone opposing his reign there is a very positive gain, because you can give that information to the world and help overthrow that reign of terror.

In knowing that a family turned into selfcentred jerks over a bunch of gold and basically killed each other in the process because an abandoned child didn't know how to be loved and accidently opened up that chance, ending in the death or madness of everybody except a single teenage girl....what's the gain in knowing that?!

Of course people can hold different personal opinions about the second, but there is no definite GAIN in that truth.
That truth is not about gaining something useful, it's just about knowing and gaining power through that. It's like we regain some power over celebrities by depriving them of their privacy.

You don't seem to understand the fact that Battler isn't talking about a particular truth, but truths in general, I think I made a point on that, and proved it with facts.

In the world there are many things that have no use nor any worth even if you know them.

I think that more than the statement that "there are truths that you're better not knowing", this is a statement that ticks me off the most.
That kind of reasoning is absolutely worthless because it treats knowledge from a mere materialistic standpoint.

What kind of logic is that? If it doesn't provide some kind of use in your everyday life then it's worthless? It's meaningless? What kind of use playing Umineko has in my everyday life? Would my life be totally different if I didn't play it? And I could say the same for music, books, movies.

So does that mean that all of those things are worthless just because they have no practical use in my everyday life?

This kind of logic is absolutely abhorrent.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I think that more than the statement that "there are truths that you're better not knowing", this is a statement that ticks me off the most.
That kind of reasoning is absolutely worthless because it treats knowledge from a mere materialistic standpoint.

[...]

So does that mean that all of those things are worthless just because they have no practical use in my everyday life?

This kind of logic is absolutely abhorrent.

But why does that statement appear so horrible to you? It's true in a way, isn't it?

Is knowing the truth behind a set of fictional murders of any use to you? Even if it would be real murders would it have any meaning?! Knowledge is something material when you consider it from a certain position.
I think Battler's reasoning isn't wrong, it's just terribly controlling.
It appears abhorrent to us, because it basically implies that we have no reason to have as much knowledge as he has. It's like a parent saying "You don't have to know that yet", which is driving a child crazy.

And a much more important topic is something that AuraTwilight already mentioned:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm just not conceding that Battler represents Ryukishi here

Battler's position is not automatically the author's position in this Episode. If it were, he wouldn't be portrayed as a pretty ambigious character during the first third or half of the 8th game (leaning almost in the direction of villain from Ange's perspective).
Jan-Poo, you say you're doing a meta-analysis looking at what the author wants to tell us in the end...but by just looking at Battler's action towards Ange, I think you're limiting the scope of what is actually happening.

It's pretty important that Battler's actions are futile and in the end Ange still learns the truth. Yet (in the good end) she decides to love and embrace the memories of her family despite knowing about the truth.
Neither Battler's nor Erika's approach were portrayed as the right one's during that Episode, at least I never considered them to be.

Battler had too much love and became blind towards the fact that people have a natural urge to know. You cannot keep somebody from knowing and developing in a way you want, while forcing them down a given path (Battler = Kinzô metaphor again).
Erika had no love at all and just existed to know the truth. But that truth never had any particular value for her in the first place, because wether it was the one solution or the other, she didn't care. Discarding all love for pure truth doesn't take you anywhere either, because you end up alone.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

So in other words, Battler acknowledges that depending on what you know your life changes. And because of that he decided to change Ange's life by telling her something different from the truth.

Am I the only one that sees a problem here? The intention might be good, but there are severe moral implications in trying to manipulate someone's life by telling them lies (or hiding truths from them). Especially if that blatantly goes against their will.

Well, of course you're not the only one, and you've actually hit on the massive moral failure of this episode. Perhaps you know it, perhaps you don't, but I'll go over it myself here:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

To sum up what Battler's angle here was, he wanted Ange to remember how everyone was when they were alive, instead of letting a tragedy define them entirely.

That's fine. But that's Battler's prerogative. He has no right to decide how others should come to interpret matters. Battler is taking an arrogant position here in essentially dictating that:

1) Ange should live her life in a particular way;
2) I am free to withhold or manipulate information if necessary to advance this conclusion to her, rather than giving her the information and encouraging her to choose my perspective freely; and
3) screw anyone other than Ange, because I don't care what they want.

Of course this is Meta-Battler, not Tohya himself, so that's a little thornier. I'm not saying Tohya/Battler himself is committing evil, or that any "real person" ever did.

Anyway, Battler is being intensely selfish. Whether Battler is well-intentioned or not in wanting to protect Ange from something he feels might cause her to make bad life decisions, who the hell does he think he is to decide that? The only person who has any right to decide how she ought to live her life is Ange herself.

What happened to her is terrible. Learning what happened to her family might be equally terrible, or worse.

But hold the phone. Ange has lived the last twelve years of her life in crippling agony over NOT KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED. Not knowing what happened destroyed her relationship with the one person left to care for her. Not knowing what happened left her defenseless against the torments of her schoolmates. Not knowing what happened left her depressed over her inability to apologize to Maria. Not knowing what happened prevented her from maturing in time to be able to assume responsibilities and avoid being used as a pawn in a game which could very well have killed her (at least, in her mind).

So it was justifiable to inflict suffering on Ange, and hurt her deeply, but it's not justifiable to tell her the truth, because it would make her suffer. She's suffering now. The real magic is that she can move on with her life after all this messing around, and that shows remarkable strength on her part. But it's not morally justifiable to say "I want to prevent Ange from suffering" when the action taken to do this causes her to suffer. I have my doubts that this can all come down to a lesser of evils calculus, especially given Ange's apparent ability to handle it when it all comes down to it.

So then why did Battler take this position? Well, either he's a hypocrite, or he has an agenda. Disguising the truth is not a moral move, but a political one. He wants Ange to think a particular way and live a particular way. Some see this as the loving act of a doting brother. But some are going to see this as intensely creepy and borderline sociopathic emotional manipulation. If Battler truly cared about doing the right thing, he'd either take a neutral stance or be truth-positive.

Originally Posted by haguruma

In knowing that a family turned into selfcentred jerks over a bunch of gold and basically killed each other in the process because an abandoned child didn't know how to be loved and accidently opened up that chance, ending in the death or madness of everybody except a single teenage girl....what's the gain in knowing that?!

Uh, lots of people?

You seem to forget Gohda, Kumasawa, Nanjo, and Genji exist. That's understandable; Battler forgot them too.

That's part of where this moral calculus becomes selfish personal ends. That's where this whole morality play collapses. As far as we know, Gohda is an innocent man. Gohda's mom has a right to know why her son - an innocent man - died and what he died for; it is not immoral for her to seek the truth and it is, in fact, a moral imperative for anyone who knows anything to tell her. Likewise, if what we've seen of Dr. Nanjo is true, he is not a criminal. His son believes to the contrary, or at least believes - based on real physical evidence he has personally seen - that something shady was going on, and that his father was involved. Nanjo's son deserves to know that his father was not a criminal. You can tell the thought of that hurts him deeply when he describes it to Ange. He doesn't even want to think about it. He is suffering, just like Ange, from not knowing the truth. Unlike Ange, no gentle lie will fix him; he's seen "proof" of something untoward. Only the truth will free him from that pain.

So long as even one person would benefit from the truth, and arguably even if no one will benefit, it is morally right to be of the position that it should be known, and is at best intensely selfish and at worst outright evil to argue that the truth should be kept unknown for one's own personal agenda.

You can argue that withholding knowledge is sometimes a good thing, but revealing knowledge is in my consideration never a bad thing, so it always trumps that morally. And yes, I struggle with this perspective in my occupation, but law is a bit more open (at least in the United States) than you might think.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Anyway, Battler is being intensely selfish. Whether Battler is well-intentioned or not in wanting to protect Ange from something he feels might cause her to make bad life decisions, who the hell does he think he is to decide that? The only person who has any right to decide how she ought to live her life is Ange herself.

[...]

So then why did Battler take this position? Well, either he's a hypocrite, or he has an agenda. Disguising the truth is not a moral move, but a political one. He wants Ange to think a particular way and live a particular way.

You are right in your personal opinion, I wouldn't want to argue with that, but you seem to forget several aspects of this fiction that can help explain why characters acted that way...

Of course what Battler did was wrong, but both his way of concealing the truth and Erika's/Bern's way of heartlessly ripping it out is what hurts Ange.
She has to find her own way to deal with the truth and no imposed solution will help her find any peace.
But Battler is still the son of a highly patriarchical family. Like Kinzô he saw it as his duty to govern everything concerning the house of Ushiromiya and in his blind goodwill he saw it in his power to do the best for his "little sister" (who wasn't as little anymore). What Battler did might have been right for the 6 year old Ange of 1986, but he seemed to have forgotten that Ange would someday grow up and ask for the "adult truth".

Like Kinzô decided over Bearice and his children and like the adults decided over their children, Battler is repeating the very same mistake in his 8th game by wanting to govern Ange's life.

You seem to forget Gohda, Kumasawa, Nanjo, and Genji exist. That's understandable; Battler forgot them too.

I never forgot about them...but you seem to forget an important thing:
Even though they are not furniture, they are still a part of the Ushiromiya family. They might not be blood-related but they are still a part of the house of Ushiromiya, considering that it is a very traditional family in Japan, which has it's roots deep in the pre-war era.
Nanjo is the only person that can actually be argued about, because he is only a friend to Kinzô and not really a part of the household.
But does Nanjo's son actually deserve to know? Is there a natural law that gives us the right to obtain truth about those who we are related to?

You can argue that withholding knowledge is sometimes a good thing, but revealing knowledge is in my consideration never a bad thing, so it always trumps that morally.

I think your occupation makes it hard for you to actually switch stances on this one, as I assume you are highly dependent on your own definition of morals.
Moral isn't something that exists naturally, it is something that's constructed by society and thus moral values change depending on the context they are seen in.
I would actually change the stress of your sentence: "revealing knowledge is in my consideration never a bad thing". You yourself consider it to be the best option, but if it actually is...I think that is actually open to discussion.

Let's take a six year old child like Ange was and you know her relatives brutally slaughtered each other out of greed for money, even her mother cared more about the wealth than her own daughter and that's why that girl is alone...would you tell her that?!

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

But does Nanjo's son actually deserve to know? Is there a natural law that gives us the right to obtain truth about those who we are related to?

The argument is "there are some things you are better off not knowing." This argument is used to justify complete concealment, not merely from Ange, but from basically anyone. I pointed out an instance in which there is no moral benefit to concealment, and indeed suggested that revealing the truth would make Nanjo Jr. feel better about himself, his father, and his child.

Let's take a six year old child like Ange was and you know her relatives brutally slaughtered each other out of greed for money, even her mother cared more about the wealth than her own daughter and that's why that girl is alone...would you tell her that?!

I would. Of course, it's quite presumptuous that we believe that was actually what happened. We still don't know.

But if you're so concerned about her ability to comprehend the truth at that age, there is always the option of not telling her right away, with the promise to her that you will tell her when she's "old enough to understand." At least that way she knows that she will one day know the truth. This is a "truth-neutral" stance, where you are not opposed to her finding out on her own (or under specific circumstances), but are not actively engaged in revelation at the immediate moment.

[AuraTwilight]

No one said that the truth is the "only" thing that matters. Erika was just making a point of how knowing the truth is the most important thing for her. And personally I can't see anything wrong with that. People have different priorities, if one's priority is knowledge over happiness who is Battler or anyone else to judge that?
In this case we are talking about one person trying to know something not pushing the truth onto others.

That being said Battler's answer was questionable in its core in my opinion, regardless of the situation.

Certainly there have been Goats who held that position, since by the time of EP8 the Japanese fandom is practically a character.

Regardless is "Only the truth matters" and "The truth is the most important thing" really different enough to split hairs over it? You get what I mean.

Well I'm really not sure she wasn't depicted as the bad guy in this episode. Granted that I acknowledge that she was the one in the right in that situation, that's just my opinion. In the end Erika was depicted as a ravager who destroyed the golden land and killed all of its inhabitants. This story didn't depict that as a good thing.

I can acknowledge that that Erika represents one side of Ange, and specifically her side that wants to know the truth at all costs. But that was still depicted as evil, especially in the "bad end" when that side transforms her into a cold blooded killer.

And yet she also had a very heroic introduction, and Battler considers her a very important friend. I wonder if we can take this as either Battler using the magic of forgiveness, or giving the implied aesop that you can't define people's moral stances by how they react to a fiction story.

You need to understand that I'm making a meta analysis here. Most stories aren't just stories, they have a message that the author tries to convey. That usually is being achieved by presenting a certain situation and by making the characters acting in a certain way.

I understand that; that doesn't mean I can't disagree with what I think the message of the story was, can I?

I acknowledge that, and I'm glad to see you also reached that conclusion, except I don't think that Ange actually wrote that, she simply thought it in my opinion.

What I don't agree with is the idea this is just some stuff a character made in a story. The themes of "learning the truth is meaningless" and of "there are things more important than the truth" are too pervasive and too much widespread. In my opinion this is a clear message from Ryuukishi, this is what he wanted to convey in the final chapter of Umineko, especially considering how in the end he creates the situation where the reader is made to choose between "truth" and "magic".

No, he wanted the reader to choose between a "Trick" and "Magic". There is a subtle enough difference.

While the idea is widespread, so is it's opposite, and it's never really conclusively answered. Both viewpoints are sympathetic. And, well, as already said, it seems implied that Ange seemed to have a look at Eva's diary (assuming that wasn't all meta), so she would just be adding her interpretation to the information she got instead of "lol lalala plugging my ears."

You don't seem to understand the fact that Battler isn't talking about a particular truth, but truths in general, I think I made a point on that, and proved it with facts.

I do; I just combined it with Battler's overgeneralizing nature and tendency to run away with himself like a reckless idiot.

I think that more than the statement that "there are truths that you're better not knowing", this is a statement that ticks me off the most.
That kind of reasoning is absolutely worthless because it treats knowledge from a mere materialistic standpoint.

What kind of logic is that? If it doesn't provide some kind of use in your everyday life then it's worthless? It's meaningless? What kind of use playing Umineko has in my everyday life? Would my life be totally different if I didn't play it? And I could say the same for music, books, movies.

So does that mean that all of those things are worthless just because they have no practical use in my everyday life?

This kind of logic is absolutely abhorrent.

Though I disagree with it, I can see where Battler's coming from here. There's power in knowing, but if the knowledge doesn't HELP you (either in the literal materialistic sense, or in the sense of self satisfaction), then you can suffer for nothing.

Also, no one needs to know what's inside my nose, right? HERP.

It's pretty important that Battler's actions are futile and in the end Ange still learns the truth. Yet (in the good end) she decides to love and embrace the memories of her family despite knowing about the truth.
Neither Battler's nor Erika's approach were portrayed as the right one's during that Episode, at least I never considered them to be.

Battler had too much love and became blind towards the fact that people have a natural urge to know. You cannot keep somebody from knowing and developing in a way you want, while forcing them down a given path (Battler = Kinzô metaphor again).
Erika had no love at all and just existed to know the truth. But that truth never had any particular value for her in the first place, because wether it was the one solution or the other, she didn't care. Discarding all love for pure truth doesn't take you anywhere either, because you end up alone.

THIS VERY MUCH THIS.

Anyway, Battler is being intensely selfish. Whether Battler is well-intentioned or not in wanting to protect Ange from something he feels might cause her to make bad life decisions, who the hell does he think he is to decide that? The only person who has any right to decide how she ought to live her life is Ange herself.

Again, I already conceded this and I totally agree; Battler's being an absolute dick. But even protagonists are allowed to be total dicks if it gets a point across.

So it was justifiable to inflict suffering on Ange, and hurt her deeply, but it's not justifiable to tell her the truth, because it would make her suffer. She's suffering now. The real magic is that she can move on with her life after all this messing around, and that shows remarkable strength on her part. But it's not morally justifiable to say "I want to prevent Ange from suffering" when the action taken to do this causes her to suffer. I have my doubts that this can all come down to a lesser of evils calculus, especially given Ange's apparent ability to handle it when it all comes down to it.

Once more, agreed; but in fairness to Meta-Battler, it's not like he's seen Ange's 1998 world like we have. It doesn't make him any less of a dick, but it does put things into scale. He only has a vague sense of what she went through, so he can have a bit of dissociation here.

So then why did Battler take this position? Well, either he's a hypocrite, or he has an agenda. Disguising the truth is not a moral move, but a political one. He wants Ange to think a particular way and live a particular way. Some see this as the loving act of a doting brother. But some are going to see this as intensely creepy and borderline sociopathic emotional manipulation. If Battler truly cared about doing the right thing, he'd either take a neutral stance or be truth-positive.

Unfortunately, we don't know what truth Battler is actually covering up. I can certainly think of scenarios that would make me (as Battler) want to cover things up without any conscious manipulative intent.

So long as even one person would benefit from the truth, and arguably even if no one will benefit, it is morally right to be of the position that it should be known, and is at best intensely selfish and at worst outright evil to argue that the truth should be kept unknown for one's own personal agenda.

Finally, agreed. I only think that Ryukishi was trying to stress that someone should be able to choose, and who else can support the opposite position from Erika and still get Ange's trust? Our candidates are limited.

[LyricalAura]

Maybe there's stuff later in the story that would change my opinion, but did everyone just sort of forget that Ange had already decided what the "truth" was and planned to kill herself after visiting Rokkenjima?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Maybe there's stuff later in the story that would change my opinion, but did everyone just sort of forget that Ange had already decided what the "truth" was and planned to kill herself after visiting Rokkenjima?

I haven't...but yeah, sometimes it appears that way.
I would go so far and say that all of Chiru is perceived more or less from a perspective similar to Ange. We are not given insight information anymore, we are given interpretations of what might have been if the scenario would have changed towards a certain extent.

Nothing in Chiru actually ever happened, it's a mind game performed by people on the outside. And thus Battler (as in Ange's brother who was on Rokkenjima in 1986) never actually wrote Episode 8 or had any part in concealing any truth from Ange.
For me it appeared like all of Episode 8 (probably all of Chiru if we believe Featherine's words) happened while Ange was standing at the edge of that building and was thinking wether to jump or not. She fought with several possibilities and among them the two strongest were her love for her family that she wanted to keep (symbolized by Battler) and her quest for absolut truth (symbolized by Bern and Erika).
Wasn't it even said that there was no way she would have survived the jump and the mere thought of it was ludicrous?!

Well, nothing in the normal arcs happened either, but it were at least probable events, while Chiru used improbable events to prove something through a reverse argument.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Maybe there's stuff later in the story that would change my opinion, but did everyone just sort of forget that Ange had already decided what the "truth" was and planned to kill herself after visiting Rokkenjima?

I remember that bit Judoh quoted about Kinzo being childish and that was why it Ange from early on in the story pissed me off. She refused to accept that her family could be portrayed in any other light than the outside and outsider view of them, especially with Kinzo. IIRC, she kept insisting that Kinzo was a bastard who used power and domination even on his own family because that's what everyone else said.

So, even if she could learn the truth, she would never be able to understand the truth.


As for the ending choice, it wasn't a choice between 'truth' or 'magic.' It was a choice between 'Magic' or 'Sleight of Hand.' The difference seems to me to be that Ange knew the truth anyways. I think we ALL knew the truth. The choice was about how you can pretend that something exists where it doesn't in order to create.

Like for example watching a story played out by shadow puppets. A really interesting play is going on but even though we know that it's really two hands crunched together, we point to the shadow and say it's a 'rabbit.' Not because it IS a rabbit, but because the storyteller intended for us to perceive it as such. Are we running away from the truth? No.

If you look at what happened to Ange afterwards on the 'sleight-of-hand' choice, I think it becomes apparent. She became completely pragmatic. Kill or be killed. Even the captain too because even if he MIGHT have been innocent, well, he MIGHT not be so shoot him too.

As opposed to the 'Magic' end where Ange becomes an author who writes children's stories. Clearly Sakutarou is fake, so why bother? Well, she can use it to write stories to bring ideas to other people, especially kids.

So, I think the choice at the end is really about whether you are willing to suspend your disbelief or not. (Technically speaking it was a Meta-World choice so... the theme kinda fits.)

[AuraTwilight]

Maybe there's stuff later in the story that would change my opinion, but did everyone just sort of forget that Ange had already decided what the "truth" was and planned to kill herself after visiting Rokkenjima?

This is a very good point. People keep rebutting to me that Ange's suicidal tendencies are a new phenomenon, but they're really not. Ange's plan of "Learn truth, kill self" is her default; either the truth is some fantastical wonderful rainbow adventure (unlikely) or she magically revives everyone (impossible), or she kills herself.

Battler was trying to change her mind on this, but he didn't seem to have any better ideas except deception. But he has a personal investment in her. It's not like he's a politician trying to control Ange's life for personal benefit; he's a big brother who promised like four episodes ago that his reason for fighting was to give Ange a happy future. And...she's not exactly making that easy for him when she goes "lol hamburgers" at the slightest bit of stress.

For me it appeared like all of Episode 8 (probably all of Chiru if we believe Featherine's words) happened while Ange was standing at the edge of that building and was thinking wether to jump or not. She fought with several possibilities and among them the two strongest were her love for her family that she wanted to keep (symbolized by Battler) and her quest for absolut truth (symbolized by Bern and Erika).

Yea, like she had the time to read War and Peace before suits would pull her off the roof. Most likely, and implied in the actual work, is that the Meta-World is real and Ange's memories were plugged into an earlier version of herself; otherwise you have to entertain the idea that Witch of Truth Ange is pretending to be on a boat and just chilling, which is...silly.

Well, nothing in the normal arcs happened either, but it were at least probable events, while Chiru used improbable events to prove something through a reverse argument.

Or EVERYTHING happened.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

So long as even one person would benefit from the truth, and arguably even if no one will benefit, it is morally right to be of the position that it should be known, and is at best intensely selfish and at worst outright evil to argue that the truth should be kept unknown for one's own personal agenda.

You can argue that withholding knowledge is sometimes a good thing, but revealing knowledge is in my consideration never a bad thing, so it always trumps that morally. And yes, I struggle with this perspective in my occupation, but law is a bit more open (at least in the United States) than you might think.

Wait, I don't agree to this. Think about it this way. My family as a secret and yes, it's not good to hide that secret from me. Once I do know about it however, it's my right to hide that secret from the rest of the world. This doesn't have to be some immoral or illegal secret. It could just simply be a hereditary disease that for some reason my family found shameful.

No one else in the world has the right to know about it since I nor my family are public figures. Especially not a bunch of people more interested in the gossip than anything else.


Ok, however, the Ushiromiya family were potentially involved in a murder scenario. Maybe that's a bit different. But even if I were the only person who knew what happened and I claimed that there was no murder, only a terrible accident.... then on top of that no evidence was found for murder... what right does anyone else have to pry into other matters and use it as a point of gossip about how someone COULD have committed murder?

Actually, this kinda fits in well with why Beatrice apologized to Ange for writing those two message bottles and stirring up trouble for her. I mean, ok, if you want to keep a secret, don't write lurid conspiracy theories about mass murder and ritualistic sacrifices. 8) (I guess Beatrice intended to stoke the flames of speculation as her way of becoming a witch... heh)

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

Wait, I don't agree to this. Think about it this way. My family as a secret and yes, it's not good to hide that secret from me. Once I do know about it however, it's my right to hide that secret from the rest of the world. This doesn't have to be some immoral or illegal secret. It could just simply be a hereditary disease that for some reason my family found shameful.

No one else in the world has the right to know about it since I nor my family are public figures. Especially not a bunch of people more interested in the gossip than anything else.

It's a very different thing when no one but your family benefits, but ultimately I'd still say disclosure cannot harm you in the long run. So you have a disease, and revealing this fact would be hurtful. More hurtful than the gossip? Once it's confirmed, there is no more gossip; it's just a fact. And eventually facts lose their novelty and luster, and slip out of public interest. In a few years, no one would care. People who have no secrets are immune to the worry and guilt that someone might find out, and besides, better to control disclosure of a truth on your own terms than to have it found out and spread about maliciously.

Which do you respect more: The politician who holds a press conference to announce he's been corrupted by power and is stepping down, or the one who only steps down because the newspaper found out about his corruption? Both are undeniably corrupt, and both should resign; yet clearly, you think better of the first one, even if his actions are no different. And in ten years, neither one will be remembered.

Ok, however, the Ushiromiya family were potentially involved in a murder scenario. Maybe that's a bit different. But even if I were the only person who knew what happened and I claimed that there was no murder, only a terrible accident.... then on top of that no evidence was found for murder... what right does anyone else have to pry into other matters and use it as a point of gossip about how someone COULD have committed murder?

Actually, this kinda fits in well with why Beatrice apologized to Ange for writing those two message bottles and stirring up trouble for her. I mean, ok, if you want to keep a secret, don't write lurid conspiracy theories about mass murder and ritualistic sacrifices. 8) (I guess Beatrice intended to stoke the flames of speculation as her way of becoming a witch... heh)

The only reason speculation is given any serious credit in the world of Umineko is because of the box keeping facts from being confirmed. If everyone knew that an earthquake set off old military explosives unwittingly stored beneath the house, killing everyone inside, and that Eva had escaped by the sheer coincidence of investigating some tunnels Kinzo had built, there'd be little to speculate on, and those who did would not be "witches," just jerks.

Besides, are we forgetting that if there was a crime (and maybe there was not), someone is guilty of that crime? Let's feel bad for the potential pain dealt to the good, yes, but why are we not willing to punish the evil? If the Rokkenjima incident was a murder, don't we deserve to know who that murderer was? It's not fair to everyone involved otherwise. Gohda's name deserves to be clean as much as Kyrie's (or George's, or Yasu's, or Battler's , or nobody's) deserves to be called out for their crime. There is actually a valid justice-based motive to unveiling what occurred.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yea, like she had the time to read War and Peace before suits would pull her off the roof. Most likely, and implied in the actual work, is that the Meta-World is real and Ange's memories were plugged into an earlier version of herself; otherwise you have to entertain the idea that Witch of Truth Ange is pretending to be on a boat and just chilling, which is...silly.

It's quite probable that she had already read the message bottles and Hachijô Tôya's books when she went up on that roof...unless she already had a certain idea of something being behind aunt Eva's lies and the public rumors she would have never had any reason to try and jump to her death in the first place.

To a certain extent I would agree, the Meta-World is real, but I would construct the effects a bit differently.
Instead of saying that Ange went on in time and all the later "Anges" were downloaded into the "Roof-Ange" again, I would say that time stopped for Ange from the moment that Bernkastel appeared before her. Through her inner struggle she tapped into the Meta-World and became disconnected from time and space. Like Featherine said, to a witch even 2 weeks can become an eternity of 100 years (which was also a clear reference to the struggle in Higurashi I think).

Or EVERYTHING happened.

That's where we can try and put the universal rules of Higurashi and Umineko together. Of course in a way everything happened if we believe those to universes to function on a similar basis. But those other Kakera have no real influence on the people of that special 1998 in which the Ange we see and follow is situated in.

Spoiler for Higurashi Rei:

In Higurashi Rei Rika acknowldges how all those deaths actually happened and her living happily ever after in one universe in the end doesn't change the fact that all those other universes are still in ruins.

There might be a Kakera where the lost child became Ushiromiya Lion and lived happily ever after with his relatives, but for that to be the truth of that 1998's past he would still have to die in 1986 with all the others.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Renall

It's a very different thing when no one but your family benefits, but ultimately I'd still say disclosure cannot harm you in the long run. So you have a disease, and revealing this fact would be hurtful. More hurtful than the gossip? Once it's confirmed, there is no more gossip; it's just a fact. And eventually facts lose their novelty and luster, and slip out of public interest. In a few years, no one would care. People who have no secrets are immune to the worry and guilt that someone might find out, and besides, better to control disclosure of a truth on your own terms than to have it found out and spread about maliciously.

I think you are highly underestimating the malice of the public if it comes to exploiting the weakpoints of others or transforming things into weakpoints. Your idea is nice, but often enough it just doesn't work.
Tell a gay man he should just make his sexuality public, even though he lives in a highly religious smalltown in the US. Okay, in the best case scenario he is accepted and all his worries are cleared...but he could just as well be killed in a hate crime the very same night. Would death be alright in this case, because it came as a result of a reaction towards truth?!
The same would happen if it would be made public that the family of a child is responsible for a mass murder (and it's indicated in Ange's reaction to the diary that it is at least partly true) and maybe even further crimes like incest, abduction, maltreatment of minors. How would you think would that child be treated? You saw how the people treated Ange and Eva even though they weren't sure...do you actually think they would treat them better because they know it is true?!

Of course Ange has no part in that murder, but the idea of hereditary evil is still too strongly rooted in people's minds.
How often have I met people who didn't want to associate with someone because of something their parents did. You can take another example of the past...in many parts of the US Germans are still viewed with a certain kind of distrust, even though most of those Germans had no part in the Nazi regime anymore, still the fear of inherent evil is stronger than any logic.

Of course it was wrong to keep the truth about Rokkenjima from those who lost someone in that tragedy. But I can understand why someone would keep it from the public, because it doesn't make anything better...in the best case scenario people loose interest and forget it altogether.

[AuraTwilight]

It's quite probable that she had already read the message bottles and Hachijô Tôya's books when she went up on that roof...unless she already had a certain idea of something being behind aunt Eva's lies and the public rumors she would have never had any reason to try and jump to her death in the first place.

Not possible. She hadn't read any such thing until afterwards, her reading of EP6 is described as an "impossible memory", and EP4 contains her exploits in 1998.

To a certain extent I would agree, the Meta-World is real, but I would construct the effects a bit differently.
Instead of saying that Ange went on in time and all the later "Anges" were downloaded into the "Roof-Ange" again, I would say that time stopped for Ange from the moment that Bernkastel appeared before her. Through her inner struggle she tapped into the Meta-World and became disconnected from time and space. Like Featherine said, to a witch even 2 weeks can become an eternity of 100 years (which was also a clear reference to the struggle in Higurashi I think).

Is there honestly a meaningful difference? Though speaking of Higurashi, the scenario I described is basically what Bernkastel went through. So liek.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

It's a very different thing when no one but your family benefits, but ultimately I'd still say disclosure cannot harm you in the long run. So you have a disease, and revealing this fact would be hurtful. More hurtful than the gossip? Once it's confirmed, there is no more gossip; it's just a fact. And eventually facts lose their novelty and luster, and slip out of public interest. In a few years, no one would care. People who have no secrets are immune to the worry and guilt that someone might find out, and besides, better to control disclosure of a truth on your own terms than to have it found out and spread about maliciously.

Yes, personally, I would do as you say. I tend to live my life not doing anything that can't be let out in the public. But at the same time, I won't say that everyone else has to follow this pattern. There should be the ability of people to keep secrets that other people have no business knowing. I also don't have anyone stalking me or anything either but I can imagine there's certain information I wouldn't want public if there was.

As for gossip, if it's gossip that misses the mark, or if the truth is actually less exciting than the lie, then exposing the truth may not be as useful...

Originally Posted by Renall

Which do you respect more: The politician who holds a press conference to announce he's been corrupted by power and is stepping down, or the one who only steps down because the newspaper found out about his corruption?

By the way, this analogy may be more in line with the Ushiromiya siblings. I'm not sure how it is for Japan but over here members of the board or executive officers of companies are considered public people already. At least their share ownership and their activities with the company are... so it is arguable some of the truth needs to come out. (Ironically, researching the sibling's companies is probably where some of the 'truth' about Kyrie's shady deals and etc. came out from...)

Originally Posted by Renall

Eva had escaped by the sheer coincidence of investigating some tunnels Kinzo had built, there'd be little to speculate on, and those who did would not be "witches," just jerks.

Of course she nearly succeeded in taking the truth to the grave with her, so I figured something very bad did happen and she didn't want Ange to be hurt by it being known. Technically, it's not something I'd do personally and I'd argue that she should let Ange know eventually, but I'm not going to hold it against her if she decides that that is the best thing to do. Assuming Eva did have the best of intentions towards Ange.

Even though I'd say it was preferable to know the truth... well, I probably wouldn't have let that early-EP8 Ange (the one that screamed and bitched about how anything but the worst possible interpretation was a fantasy) know the truth anyways. You just kinda saw she didn't have the capacity to judge what happened properly.

You know how sometimes you meet the ultimate pessimist... or just as bad, the ultimate optimist... the facts get twisted to fit their ideas and aren't evaluated for the facts themselves. Like during the stock market bull years or the bear years...

Originally Posted by Renall

Besides, are we forgetting that if there was a crime (and maybe there was not), someone is guilty of that crime? Let's feel bad for the potential pain dealt to the good, yes, but why are we not willing to punish the evil? If the Rokkenjima incident was a murder, don't we deserve to know who that murderer was? It's not fair to everyone involved otherwise. Gohda's name deserves to be clean as much as Kyrie's (or George's, or Yasu's, or Battler's , or nobody's) deserves to be called out for their crime. There is actually a valid justice-based motive to unveiling what occurred.

Well, I'd agree except the police concluded that it was an accident instead of a murder. And indeed no one thought any other way until the message bottles were found. So it wasn't like the police were getting involved. In fact, it wasn't like even competent detectives were getting involved, it was just the gossiping masses. 8)

When that happened, I tend to agree that it would've made it easier on Eva if she came out and told what she knew since we now kinda think she probably wasn't guilty of anything. And prepared Ange for it too...

[Renall]

I don't even think that's really reasonable, but the detachment and referential nature of the meta-world means it could have metaphorically happened that Ange turned over her thoughts and life in an instant eternity, and made a decision in a split-second not to jump.

Of course, a realist will say that she didn't actually do anything of the sort, and that she merely subconsciously decided against jumping at the last second, perhaps due to an unresolved desire or a sudden insight.

But ultimately it's the same thing in result, so...

[Sherringford]

I'd just like to note, I was rereading S.S Van Dine's The Greene Murder Case and I can't help but notice how the murderer's insanity can rival Yasu's.

Spoiler for For The Greene's Murder Case:

Thank God I found a pdf of this, I was afraid I'd have to transcribe it.

""To trace the origin of her diabolical scheme we must first consider the locked library. Alone in the house, bored, resentful, tied down--it was inevitable that this pervertedly romantic child should play Pandora. She had every opportunity of securing the key and having a duplicate made; and so the library became her retreat, her escape from the gruelling, monotonous routine of her existence. There she ran across those books on criminology. They appealed to her, not only as a vicious outlet for her smouldering, repressed hatred, but because they struck a responsive chord in her tainted nature. Eventually she came upon Gross's great manual, and thus found the entire technique of crime laid out before her, with diagrams and examples--not a handbook for examining magistrates, but a guide for a potential murderer! Slowly the idea of her gory orgy took shape. At first perhaps she only imagined, as a means of self- gratification, the application of this technique of murder to those she hated. But after a time, no doubt, the conception became real. She saw its practical possibilities; and the terrible plot was formulated. She created this horror, and then, with her diseased imagination, she came to believe in it. Her plausible stories to us, her superb acting, her clever deceptions--all were part of this horrible fantasy she had engendered.""

Seriously, this would work as an explanation for Yasu.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Unfortunately, we don't know what truth Battler is actually covering up. I can certainly think of scenarios that would make me (as Battler) want to cover things up without any conscious manipulative intent.

If you've thought of scenarios that you think work, please, by all means share them, but I can't imagine any. Unless it's the World War III/world peace thing and I don't buy that at all. To write his way out of this one he's going to have to excuse Battler's behavior without making him look like he's making excuses. At least selfish ones. Can he do that? I dunno anymore

[AuraTwilight]

Well, aside from those sorts of things like the WW3 thing, and funny things like Mecha-Kuwadorian, and from things like "Meta-Battler-as-Ange's-And/or-Amnesiac-Battler's-Mind cannot tell her things she doesn't already know"...

What if, assuming the Meta-World is real, everyone can only survive there if the truth is let out? In the end Battler, Beatrice and the rest live happily ever after in a metaphysical plane, but what if the truth that they died destroys that?

What if Battler THINKS that? It could very much be like those Dream Apocalypse stories where an imaginary friend tries to keep a character from waking up and whatnot.