Umineko Chiru: A good progression? (Full Series Spoilers)

[ctom42]

It tries to tell the readers that “this is a mystery and these are the tools you should use to solve this mystery” instead of allowing the reader to take his own interpretation and keeping it at heart

It definitely does not do this. Umineko states many times that Knox is not an absolute rule, merely a tool to use as a starting point for deduction. SSVD’s rules were straight up criticized for being too rigid and limiting. Taking their own interpretation and keeping it at heart was exactly what Umineko encouraged it’s readers to do.

no longer a world where character goals can be put into a human perspective

This is simply not true. Everything in the metaworld was made out of human wishes, desires, pains, and and emotions. Every fantasy character represents something very core and human to the story. Zepar and Furfur are an obvious example. They are demons of love, the main driving motivation behind the entire incident. They constantly remind the reader to look for the motivation, the heart of the story. They are two people, but they are almost one character, they have different genders. They are a representation of Yasu herself (himself), identifying as both a male and female, having more than one persona.

I won’t say the way you viewed Chiru is wrong, because Umineko is all about finding your own truths and interpretations. It just saddens me to hear that Chiru lacked the humanity you desired when to me it had much more of that humanity than 1-4 did.

Episode 7 was entirely focused on that, on the emotions of the characters, on the tragic trail that led to the horrible Rokkenjima incident. Episode 8 was also focused on the characters and their humanity. It focused on reminding the reader that humans are multifaceted. That just because someone might be scary, scheming, or perhaps even murderous in one situation that they could still be a loving family in another. That the speculations of the news and strangers based on facts of financial troubles or past scandals would always be missing the positive, light side of the humans they were discussing.

Episodes 5 and 6 were also focused on the heart and humanity. The entire story with Natsuhi was showing how using a few “facts” one could make assumptions about the character of someone and force a truth about how horrible a person they were upon them. It was about how you cannot prove love, you cannot prove your thoughts and feelings, and that those who find the clues, the few written thoughts and feelings, will interpret those without knowing the full picture. Episode 6 focused on love, on the struggle between Shannon and Kanon and Beatrice, on the impossible situation they were in, on the true heart of the tale.

So when you claim Chiru was all about meta-mystery elements fighting against each other I disagree. Chiru was a tale of love and tragedy. Of accusation and forgiveness. Of trust and distrust. Hell thanks to the additional meta framing of Chiru you can view the entire story as Ange’s path to coming to terms with the tragedy as she reads the tales written by Hachijou Tohya. You can view the entire story as Tohya writing to come to terms with his memories of Battler put him to a final rest.

The meta elements about the nature of mystery are only a single facet of Chiru. Even a character like Erika, who’s main role was to represent readers without heart, who merely search for the answer, was provided very human motivations. A single scene which clearly conveyed how she had her heart broken by her own doubts. How she couldn’t trust in love over evidence, how she suffered from the inability of humans to prove an absolute truth, especially when it comes to their feelings. This is a very human thing, as many relationships fall apart due to trust issues.

1-4 may have had humanity within it’s mystery, but Chiru turned the mystery itself into humanity. It reminded readers that the characters were people, that the crimes have motives, and that the truth is clouded by the thoughts and feelings of those who interpret it.

[ghagler]

how did you come to this conclusion yourself, and did you think that even before Episode 8 (where I can easily see that becoming a hypothesis)?

I actually didn’t think that during any episode until the very end of Episode 8. To combine my response to you with @ctom42: I hadn’t received that impression from Episodes 5 through 7; it was really near the end of 8 that I got it.

First of all, let me state that Umineko is already a bit confusing in this regard due to the metaworld. In reality, everyone on the island except for Battler and Eva are dead; and yet they exist in the metaworld and Gameboards. In other words, from the beginning, Battler in the metaworld wasn’t in the same kind of situation as a detective trying to figure out the killer in a mystery; precisely because no one could truly die, the reason he sought the truth (and the truths he sought) were different. In that regard, the progression from the first four episodes to the last four was perfectly reasonable.

The only issue I had, to be honest, came with the only choice in the whole VN and some of the accompanying dialogue: Ange’s choice between magic and a trick and the subsequent discussion about the simultaneous truths within an unopened Schrodinger’s box. Make no mistake: I understand the symbolism of her choice. But it still doesn’t sit well that, at its heart, the message is that a lie might be preferable to the truth.

That might not at all be what Ryukishi intended, but the entire arc of Featherine trying to open the book of truth and others trying to stop it gives that impression. Do I understand what he wanted to say? I think so; they wanted to open the book because they had an unhealthy desire, like Erika, to beat the mystery itself; they were not motivated for love of the deceased, but for love of their own logic and their exultant feeling of crushing another’s mystery. That, naturally, isn’t a good thing.

But, at the same time, that arc had the protagonists seeking to stop the “opening of the box” because it would eliminate the other more pleasant possibilities from being potentially true, as well as stopping the badly motivated people.

While I’m sure that wasn’t Ryukishi’s overall theme, he did have that impression in that final aspect of the work.

[Pepe]

Every fantasy character represents something very core and human to the story. Zepar and Furfur are an obvious example. They are demons of love, the main driving motivation behind the entire incident. They constantly remind the reader to look for the motivation, the heart of the story.

See perhaps that’s the issue I have; that sort of viewpoint is one that I like to have when reading a story the moment I start reading it. Yes they are a reminder and a representation, but do we, as readers, really need this representation? Can we not gain the same sort of appreciation by viewing it solely from the character and human perspective, without needing the help of a metaworld?

Episode 7 was entirely focused on that, on the emotions of the characters, on the tragic trail that led to the horrible Rokkenjima incident. Episode 8 was also focused on the characters and their humanity. It focused on reminding the reader that humans are multifaceted.

Episodes 5 and 6 were also focused on the heart and humanity. The entire story with Natsuhi was showing how using a few “facts” one could make assumptions about the character of someone and force a truth about how horrible a person they were upon them.

The examples you’ve given are exactly the things I appreciated out of all of Chiru. Seeing the story from a different perspective of the characters was a pretty good way of telling a multi-faceted story. Seeing the history of Natsuhi, the background between Battler and Beatrice’s relationship, and the tale of the impossible love between Yasu’s numerous personas was the highlight of Chiru, for me. But every other scene, I’m dragged back into the metaworld and forced to look at these things not from a human perspective, but from a meta storytelling perspective.

Hell thanks to the additional meta framing of Chiru you can view the entire story as Ange’s path to coming to terms with the tragedy as she reads the tales written by Hachijou Tohya. You can view the entire story as Tohya writing to come to terms with his memories of Battler put him to a final rest.

But, why the need of such a metaworld? This entire mindset can be so much more beautifully crafted by simply listening to the words and actions surrounding Ange; we don’t need a characterization of her internal struggle, because I feel that’s something that we, as people, should struggle by ourselves to understand, as it will help us understand the motives of a person a lot better.

The meta elements about the nature of mystery are only a single facet of Chiru. Even a character like Erika, who’s main role was to represent readers without heart, who merely search for the answer, was provided very human motivations.

I guess what I want to say now is that, despite it only being a single facet of Chiru, I felt it drew away from the appreciation of the rest of the characters of Rokkenjima. I wanted to explore their personalities in my own way; the way one would explore the personalities of people they would meet in real life with dialogue. Instead I am given a representation of a persona that I can no longer relate to as a human because, well, they are just representations. So I had absolutely no emotion seeing what happened to Erika except for “yeah you right” because I don’t see her as a person who grew up with these motivations in mind; I see her as a device that the author used to represent a mindset that he later showed to have flaws.

I want to see people and characters for who they are and what they do, and not have to use representations within a metaworld to try and understand them.

[ctom42]

I don’t see her as a person who grew up with these motivations in mind; I see her as a device that the author used to represent a mindset that he later showed to have flaws

I could make that claim about any character in any story. Even the human characters in Umineko are all there for a purpose. They each have a vice or two that they represent, there are lesson to be learned from them. The only reason there is a difference between the humans and the meta characters is because you decided there was. The reason you could not related to them as human was because you chose not to. The fantasy and mystery characters were every bit as human and relatable as the rest of the rokkenjima cast, but because you dismissed them as “not-human” you failed to see that.

Remember, Beatrice herself is a fantasy character. Viewing her as simply a witch to be defeated was what Battler did in episode 2. But as early as episode 3 Battler had already begun to understand she had human motivations, emotions, and struggles. The humanizing of the fantasy cast is something that started in 1-4, it was nothing special or unique to Chiru, and as I stated, it was a natural progression.

[quote] I want to see people and characters for who they are and what they do,
and not have to use representations within a metaworld to try and
understand them.[/quote]

You say that, and yet you have completely thrown out the majority of the cast as characters by thinking of them merely as representations. Dlanor is just as valid of a character as Natsuhi. Erika is just as valid as Maria. Virgillia just as valid as Kumasawa. The fantasy and mystery characters do represent things on the human levels of the story, but they are also characters with their own humanity all to themselves. Dlanor fulfills her duties as a Inquisitor of Heresy to the letter, but still maintains her own personal opinions and emotions, which often conflict with her duties. Will leaves his job because he believes the way his rules are being used lacks heart.

Whether it is the purgatory sisters, or Bern and Lamda they all have the types of complex emotions and relationships you are looking for. By throwing that out you have made the metaworld into a barren shell of what it really is. It’s not surprising that Chiru is lacking in humanity or heart when you do that. But that’s not because the story didn’t have those things, it’s because you refused to see them.

---

the message is that a lie might be preferable to the truth

That is not at all how I interpreted that choice, nor do I think that was the intended message. The point was that there is no absolute truth. Even the book of one truth is merely Eva’s interpretation of the events. As we saw from Natsuhi’s diary in episode 5 it could very well be full of cruel thoughts that would give an incorrect impression of the truth. The Rokkenjima incident left little to no evidence. Even the two survivors probably only had limited knowledge of what happened that day. They would not know the motives of the murderer, the complex reasons behind everything. They would not know all the answers, only what little they saw and how they interpreted it.

The point of the magic ending was that in the absence of a single truth any number of truths are valid. Ange’s choice was about choosing a happy truth instead of a sad one. It was about remembering her family fondly instead of doubting each of them. When any of them could be the murderer is it better to treat them all as the murderer or none of them? When the only thing it will affect is how fondly she is able to remember them the answer is clearly the latter. What does she gain by learning the “truth”? What does she lose?

The point was that there is more to a mystery than the answer. That there is more to a story than defeating a villain. It wasn’t about deluding yourself with a lie, or rejecting reality. It was about optimism instead of pessimism, hope instead of despair, love instead of hate.

[ghagler]

The point was that there is no absolute truth.

See, that’s even worse. There is such a thing as truth; after all, people were murdered. It is upon that absolute truth - that what was is no longer, due to the sin of another - that we see these crimes as needing to be solved. It is an act of respect for the dead; we see murder as truly evil precisely because the victims were truly important.

The main issue is, as you said, the truth couldn’t be ascertained by people outside the island.

What does she gain by learning the “truth”? What does she lose?

As St. Thomas Aquinas says, “the standard of all act is Charity.” The classical purpose of prosecuting criminals was two-fold: first, to uphold the order of justice; and second, to help the criminal repent and find new life.

In this case, Ange’s pursuit of the truth can be done for many reasons, but one of them is, indeed, love: to will the good of the other.

It’s a bit complicated, since those responsible are likely already dead, so the second reason is pretty moot. There’s no one still around to rectify, if Eva’s not the killer.

But the order of justice still stands. If someone committed murder - if someone chose to end the life of another for a selfish reason - then that person isn’t good. It does no one good to cover a wolf in sheep’s skin. It’s not wrong for Ange to seek the truth.

But, as you said, she can’t figure it out. In the end, Ange’s story is really simple, isn’t it? She grew up, visited the island, and found no evidence. The truth remained hidden; and as justice demands, all are innocent until proven guilty.

In the end, it is the case where she can imagine her family as blameless; but that’s simply because the truth is beyond her reach. If she were able to discover it - if she were able to find testimony by Eva that so-and-so pulled out a gun and shot someone else, on purpose or accident - that wouldn’t be wrong to pursue. Even if the truth is that it was all an accident gone wrong, that’s still something worth knowing.

[ctom42]

There is such a thing as truth

If we were gods that had an absolute view of all things then I would agree. But the world is not so convenient. There is no higher being, no witch, no author, to present us with red. Even people who have been “proven” to be guilty in a court of law can later be found to be innocent. However in the time in between the “truth” that society believes is that they are guilty. Some people who are close to them may hold on to a personal “golden truth” in their innocence.

The message at the end of Umineko is to find your own golden truth. Reality doesn’t have a nice answer that a higher being can simply hand to you, and so neither does Umineko. You must find that truth on your own.

if someone chose to end the life of another for a selfish reason - then that person isn’t good

That’s an extremely black and white way to view it. A good person can still do a horrible thing. As and often unforgivable a crime as murder is, a person is not defined by a single act, a single day of their lives. Good people can commit evil acts. Umineko is not a story about making a criminal pay for their sins, but understanding the tragedy that led to an even greater tragedy. It’s not a story about finger pointing but about humanity.

Even if the truth is that it was all an accident gone wrong, that’s still something worth knowing

The point was that finding the truth is only one way of moving on from a tragedy. Ange’s journey was a journey of grief. She passed through all of the classical stages of Grief.

Denial - she believed her family could return home to her, that Battler could defeat the witch and give her a happy ending.

Anger - she lashes out against Eva, accuses and blames her.

Bargaining - she searches for the “truth” but really is just looking for someone to blame.

Depression - she realizes that no one is returning home, that the truth is not some convenient thing that can make her pain go away.

Acceptance - She finds comfort in remembering that her family loved her, in believing that they were fundamentally good people, and that they are watching over her and wishing for her happiness.

The point at the end was that searching for a truth she would never find would not make her happy. The point was to live for the future instead of being trapped in the past. The point for us viewers was to not just view a mystery as a puzzle to be solved, but also as a story about people with goals and ambitions, hopes and dreams, pain and suffering, joy and happiness. The game of a mystery is fun and enjoyable, but just like anything else the true value lies in the journey itself, not the destination.

[Pepe]

[[quote=“ctom42, post:13, topic:183”]
I could make that claim about any character in any story. Even the human characters in Umineko are all there for a purpose. They each have a vice or two that they represent, there are lesson to be learned from them. The only reason there is a difference between the humans and the meta characters is because you decided there was. The reason you could not related to them as human was because you chose not to.
[/quote]

I will openly admit that I do not view them as such. Whether it is because I choose not to or whether it is a subconscious reaction from my understanding of the story, I can’t quite say. But assuming I do view them as actual characters and not as representations, I find them 10 degrees less interesting than the cast of Rokkenjima, and for one main reason: they lack a backstory. Yes Dlanor is supposedly doing the work of the Eisene Jungfrau, and Will is from the SSVD, but we have absolutely no information about these organizations. We don’t know how these organizations work and, as such, we won’t be able to relate to these characters own gripes towards the organizations they work for. We only see a small part of their internal struggle, but because of the lack of a background, we can’t see the factors affecting this struggle.

So even if I view them more as genuine characters and less as representations, they still remain uninteresting characters to me, the same way I feel disinterested with characters from other series that lack backstory. And when a large chunk of the story involves uninteresting characters in an equally uninteresting setting, having them fight against each other to try to answer the questions, then I will naturally feel that they retract from the story.

So at this point, how should I even go about viewing the metaworld? The two options shown to me are that I either look at it as a representation of the thoughts and emotions main story (which I dislike because it pulls away from analyzing the characters in Rokkenjima from a human perspective), or I look at it as a separate story, with characters and a conflict that exist and progress away from the original story (which I dislike because of the lack of background towards the world that was constructed for it).

Remember, Beatrice herself is a fantasy character. Viewing her as simply a witch to be defeated was what Battler did in episode 2. But as early as episode 3 Battler had already begun to understand she had human motivations, emotions, and struggles. The humanizing of the fantasy cast is something that started in 1-4, it was nothing special or unique to Chiru, and as I stated, it was a natural progression.

See, Beatrice is an exception; she has a genuine backstory. While there is a big disconnect between “Beatrice the witch” and “Beatrice the human”, the fantasy side of hers is still connected to the human side. So I will say right now, when she started turning into a lifeless being at the end of Episode 4, I felt absolutely nothing for her, not even remorse; only after I learned her backstory could I truly empathize with her desires as a character.

[ghagler]

Even people who have been “proven” to be guilty in a court of law can later be found to be innocent.

True, but that’s why we have “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Even with forensics, we can’t be 100% sure; but that’s true about everything.

Look at epistemology. The Epistemological Idealists say that the truth is absolutely unknowable; since our senses themselves are potentially entirely false, we can’t actually know anything. The chair we see has no relation to an actual, existing chair; it’s just an idea. That’s the logical conclusion if we say “in order to assert something is true, we must have absolute 100% proof of it.”

On the other hand, the Relational Realists state that we do, in fact, perceive reality - insofar as it relates to us. There is such a thing as a chair, and I’m viewing it as it relates to me: through vision, reflections of light, etc. Even though there’s no proof that the Relational Realists are correct, that’s what our natural inclination to believe is and that’s the assumption we make as we go about living in this world.

If we were to state “because we cannot know with 100% certainty that Jimmy is a murderer, we cannot state he is and arrest him,” then we would never arrest anyone. Even if I saw him kill Johnny, not everyone saw him; and if we’re going the full Idealist route, even direct observation wouldn’t be enough.

In this imperfect world, we must settle for reasonable doubt. While it may allow for people to be framed or wrongly accused, the truth doesn’t change. If they didn’t commit murder, at least they can rest in the peace of knowing they never did it; but if they did commit murder, being convicted (or not) won’t change the fact that they did, in fact, make that choice.

That’s an extremely black and white way to view it. A good person can still do a horrible thing.

Then they aren’t fully good anymore. Do note the logical consequence of this: that we all, in fact, have done evil. Does that make us all evil? Yes, in part. That’s the point. We should never settle for evil of any kind.

As and often unforgivable a crime as murder is, a person is not defined by a single act, a single day of their lives.

When you make an act, you’re also making a choice of value. If I choose to kill, I value the intended end (my pleasure, perhaps; or my finances; or the satisfaction of my hatred; whatever it may be) over their life.

That can be corrected, of course; that’s the point! We want them to change their values to become rightly ordered again! It’s better to value each human life appropriately, and not to value pleasure above any of them.

A single act doesn’t define you forever, but it does define what you valued in that moment.

That’s precisely why we must strive, with all passion and strength, to get them to change those values back. And to do that, they must realize the horrible evil of murder. And to imprint that evil on the minds of every living being, we must always prosecute murder. We must ensure the order of justice is served, so that the revolting evil of murder is never questioned.

Umineko is not a story about making a criminal pay for their sins, but understanding the tragedy that led to an even greater tragedy. It’s not a story about finger pointing but about humanity.

That’s true. I’m not saying Umineko should’ve changed to prosecuting the guilty, mainly because everyone’s already dead.

The point at the end was that searching for a truth she would never find would not make her happy. The point was to live for the future instead of being trapped in the past. The point for us viewers was to not just view a mystery as a puzzle to be solved, but also as a story about people with goals and ambitions, hopes and dreams, pain and suffering, joy and happiness. The game of a mystery is fun and enjoyable, but just like anything else the true value lies in the journey itself, not the destination.

It’s true that she wouldn’t be able to find out the truth; with that, I see no problem ending Umineko the way it did.

My only real objection to all of this would be the reasoning behind it. Instead of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” it’s more like “it’s better to assume they’re innocent, so as to keep good memories of them.”

---

I suppose I can summarize my two issues with the presentation of Umineko here:

1. A denial of ability to know objective truth, which would lead to epistemological idealism;

2. I’m not fully sure how to put this one; maybe a denial of the truth about people’s acts relating to who they are? It’s kind of abstract and hard to define right now; maybe I’ll get a better idea of my exact objection later. In any case, it’s linked to #1, I think.

Even if Ryukishi didn’t intend for these two messages to come across, the text certainly lent itself to these interpretations very well.

[ctom42]

A denial of ability to know objective truth, which would lead to epistemological idealism;

Epistemological idealism is taking it to the extreme, but yes realistically we are all imperfect beings and any truth we claim could easily be a lie, a mistake, etc.

However Umineko is not preaching epistemological idealism, it’s preaching deciding your own truth. It’s preaching looking at all the facts, clues, etc. But also looking at the heart, looking with love, looking from all angles. It doesn’t give an answer not because an answer is futile, but because we as supposed to find an answer ourselves. The story presents to us Ange’s answer, the answer that allows her move on with her life. But that doesn’t mean we are not supposed to still search for our own.

---

they lack a backstory. Yes Dlanor is supposedly doing the work of the Eisene Jungfrau, and Will is from the SSVD, but we have absolutely no information about these organizations. We don’t know how these organizations work and, as such, we won’t be able to relate to these characters own gripes towards the organizations they work for. We only see a small part of their internal struggle, but because of the lack of a background, we can’t see the factors affecting this struggle.

How much do we know of the other characters? How much do we really know about Rudolph’s shady business ventures and the trouble he is in? About Krauss’s investments and failures? About the struggles of Rosa’s small fashion business? About Hideyoshi’s food business? The answer is very little. But we fill in the blanks with our imaginations, with our own experiences about what those things might be like. The same holds true for SSVD and Eisene Jungfrau. We know they are a form of justice system and we are given some background on them. They are bureaucratic and have paperwork (which Dlanor detests). There is a “great court of heaven”. We see the SSVD arresting a criminal and interrogating them like the police do. We may not know all the inner workings of these agencies but we know enough to make assumptions about what they are like based on our own experiences with similar agencies. This is exactly the same as the level of detail we have on the adult human characters.

they still remain uninteresting characters to me, the same way I feel disinterested with characters from other series that lack backstory

Backstory is the cheapest way to add character depth. We get more depth out of Dlanor in her first two scenes (Kinzo’s room and the tea party in the golden land) than many characters get in entire stories. We learn Dlanor’s philosophies on life, her competitive nature, her respect for others regardless of whether they are witches. A character doesn’t need a complicated past to be interesting. A character’s words and actions within a story are always more important than whatever backstory they have. The backstory is what made them as they are, but for the sake of the story, how they are and how they change within it are far more important.

So at this point, how should I even go about viewing the metaworld? The two options shown to me are that I either look at it as a representation of the thoughts and emotions main story (which I dislike because it pulls away from analyzing the characters in Rokkenjima from a human perspective), or I look at it as a separate story, with characters and a conflict that exist and progress away from the original story (which I dislike because of the lack of background towards the world that was constructed for it).

I find that the best way to look at Umineko is all of the ways at once. The meta characters are both representations of ideas, objects, motivations, and people on the gameboard and their own characters with their own thoughts, feelings, motives, pasts, etc. That’s what makes them so special. Many of the fantasy characters work on 4 or 5 levels of the story. Take Chiester 410 for example. She is a character, she was once in love and her lover died and now she finds it easier to simply not love anymore. On the level of the board game she is a gun, one of the 4 guns on the island, used to commit the murders. However to Beatrice/Yasu she is something more. She is one of Maria’s friends, one of the rabbit band, a member of Mariage Sorciere. Her character design and role in the story incoperates all of these elements and forms it around a complete character. Certainly she is more of a side character than someone like Bernkastel, but she is a complete and complex character nonetheless.

only after I learned her backstory could I truly empathize with her desires as a character.

That is again because you were not viewing her as a character. Certainly learning all the things she went through enhances the feelings about her suffering as a lifeless being in episode 5, but it shouldn’t be required. There is still the Beatrice that was a character in episodes 1-4. The things she said, the things she did, the ways she influenced the other characters and the events of the story. Her motivations were not clear, but they were hinted at.

Do you not appreciate any character until it has backstory? Do you watch anime and not like anyone until the episode where their past is revealed? It seems like a foolish way of consuming media to me to not invest in a character until you know their whole personal history. Do you meet a new acquaintance and refuse to become friends until you know their life story? Backstories enhance a character, but they don’t make a character. And the best characters are the ones that don’t need a backstory, the ones that everything relevant to the story for them happens within the story itself.

[Pepe]

How much do we know of the other characters? How much do we really know about Rudolph’s shady business ventures and the trouble he is in? About Krauss’s investments and failures? About the struggles of Rosa’s small fashion business? About Hideyoshi’s food business? The answer is very little.

Really? I would argue we know a lot more than the rest of the meta characters. That is most definitely how I felt and did not for one second think that the level of detail of the characters in the metaworld was on an equal level to those of the characters from Rokkenjima. And even if I assume that they were given just as much detail…

We may not know all the inner workings of these agencies but we know enough to make assumptions about what they are like based on our own experiences with similar agencies. This is exactly the same as the level of detail we have on the adult human characters.

I find that arguable; I have no way of knowing whether or not these organizations work the same way as similar agencies in real life because, well, they are portrayed and advertised as something on a different plane of existence. I could go in and assume that, and use my imagination to fill in the rest, but I won’t, because I lack the information of the workings of such an organization.

The organizations involving the Rokkenjima cast, however, I can use a lot more information related to the real world. I have some vague ideas about how businesses work, and thus I can relate a lot more to the struggles that each of the 2nd-generation Ushiromiya siblings have been having and how it affects their characters and the way they look at other characters.

A character’s words and actions within a story are always more important than whatever backstory they have. The backstory is what made them as they are, but for the sake of the story, how they are and how they change within it are far more important.

I also argue with that; while I cannot deny the importance of the character’s actions within a story, I feel that having backstory is an integral part of storytelling. It allows us as readers to strengthen our convictions in regards to a characters personality, so when you say:

We learn Dlanor’s philosophies on life, her competitive nature, her respect for others regardless of whether they are witches.

How can I, as a reader, be convinced that that really is her philosophy in life? How can I be convinces that she thinks that way towards others? And when the character development finally strikes, how can I be convinced that it wasn’t there all along?

Take Chiester 410 for example. She is a character, she was once in love and her lover died and now she finds it easier to simply not love anymore. On the level of the board game she is a gun, one of the 4 guns on the island, used to commit the murders. However to Beatrice/Yasu she is something more.

See, this example you give, while I can see it is something you consider brilliant, I consider it shallow. Her persona, as a character, would be something very interesting, but is barely even touched upon in the game. All the other aspects remain on the same level of insight throughout the game, and while I may be expected to fill in the blanks with my own imagination, I just see it as a half-assed attempt to put in character depth without filling in the rest of the character. I’m not reading this story to get a character and obtain a setting that I can use to create my own perception of what they are; I’m reading it in order to understand the character the way as they are shown throughout the story. And, specifically towards the characters of the metaworld, they are shown to be very multi-faceted but, at the same time, all facets remain only shallowly touched upon.

That is again because you were not viewing her as a character.

Again, I do not deny that. But should I blame myself for not being able to view her as a character? Or should I blame the story for not presenting it in a way that I can empathize with her? It’s probably a bit of both and while I can go on about the first theory, that isn’t the point of this discussion topic. I did, after all, say in my very first post here that

This is a very personal opinion of mine

So to answer your questions, this time on a personal level:

Do you not appreciate any character until it has backstory? Do you watch anime and not like anyone until the episode where their past is revealed? … Do you meet a new acquaintance and refuse to become friends until you know their life story?

Yes, yes (this has happened before), and to the third not exactly, but my relationships between people are a matter that I do not wish to discuss here

And the best characters are the ones that don’t need a backstory, the ones that everything relevant to the story for them happens within the story itself.

I definitely think the contrary, in that the best characters are one that have a backstory consistent to the current story at hand, and one that we, as readers, will be able to see the logical progression from that backstory, to the current story, all the way until the point of character development, such that the character development becomes something interesting, credible and empathize-able. That is what I consider as brilliance in character writing.

[ctom42]

It seems to me like to you the weight of characterization almost solely rests in backstory. I honestly view that as a very sad view on storytelling in general. Backstories are often considered a very cheap form of characterization, and many authors frown upon the process of showing eleborate backstories for each character. Many of my favorite characters across many mediums have no real backstory to speak of. Even characters that do get backstories often get them fairly late in a series. To not be able to invest in a character until that point is a very sad way to go about experiencing media.

Backstories are not an integral part of storytelling at all. It is only one of many methods of characterization, and one that many writers overuse because of the relative ease of execution. Many many stories do not give any backstory to any of their characters. Tatami Galaxy is a great example. But there are countless other examples that are part of classic or contemporary literature, tv shows, anime, etc.

Backstories are a useful literary device, and when used well can add a lot of depth to a character, but they are far from essential. To place so much weight on the existence of a backstory is to close yourself off from wonderful characters and stories and execute their storytelling with a high degree of finesse.

How can I, as a reader, be convinced that that really is her philosophy in life? How can I be convinces that she thinks that way towards others? And when the character development finally strikes, how can I be convinced that it wasn’t there all along?

What reason do you have to doubt? Do you doubt simply because she is a meta-character? Do you doubt every statement of philosophy from every character in the story? I honestly don’t understand the issue here, this was pretty standard characterization. Your last question doesn’t even make sense. I assume by character development there you mean her actually growing/changing. This form of character development in no way requires backstory, it simply requires seeing a distinct change in the patterns of thoughts, words, or actions. Succeeding where a character had previously failed is a common method of execution. Standing up for beliefs when they had previously backed down for example.

[Pepe]

It seems to me like to you the weight of characterization almost solely rests in backstory. I honestly view that as a very sad view on storytelling in general. Backstories are often considered a very cheap form of characterization, and many authors frown upon the process of showing eleborate backstories for each character.

While I wouldn’t say that it solely rests in backstory, I do consider it an integral part of characterizaton. The backstory doesn’t even have to be elaborate nor tragic! It simply has to give us an idea of the characters’ motivations and why they have this, as opposed to the writer just showing us that “hey, this is how this character’s personality is; deal with it”

Therefore I find it quite odd that you would think it as something of a cheap tool. Like, I am sitting here, right now, genuinely confused as to why you see it that way. While yes, there are numerous examples of backstories that are overbearing, too tragic, or downright silly; I still see it as a good tool that, when used correctly, makes for a more engaging story than one without.

What reason do you have to doubt? Do you doubt simply because she is a meta-character? Do you doubt every statement of philosophy from every character in the story?

My reason for doubting is simply that I do not know the character; her being a meta-character has nothing to do with it. So, yes, I do doubt every statement of philosophy from every character because, well, I believe that truly complex characters aren’t even sure of their own philosophies themselves. Unless I know their motivations, I cannot be attached to a character’s own philosophies in such a heartbeat. So when they do suddenly undergo a distinct change in their pattern of thoughts, this change offers absolutely no engagement, because no attachment was formed with their previous philosophy.

This attachment doesn’t even have to be good or bad; you just have to be convicted that their motivations drive them as a character, to the point that when they are forced to confront the inevitable change, you can feel the internal conflict that said character had to face, and, as such, that surge of emotions you get from seeing that character changing is just incomparable.

So maybe you are correct when you say

To place so much weight on the existence of a backstory is to close yourself off from wonderful characters and stories and execute their storytelling with a high degree of finesse.

but the kind of feeling that I get from seeing that sort of character growth is my raison d’être for reading fiction, and I would not give it up for anything else.

[ctom42]

I believe that truly complex characters aren’t even sure of their own philosophies themselves

How does that even make sense. Certainly not everyone is self-aware of everything about their own philosophies. However, I am aware of my own philosophies, does that make me not complex? Self-awareness is not at all related to complexity of character in any way, shape or form. People achieve self awareness by reflecting on their actions and principles. Some characters are the type to do this, others are not.

Therefore I find it quite odd that you would think it as something of a cheap tool. Like, I am sitting here, right now, genuinely confused as to why you see it that way

Backstories, like any other literary device can be very effective and useful in doing their job. On the other hand they are often overused and can seriously hurt the flow of a work. Authors generally have extensive backstories for all their characters, but they don’t show everything to the audience. A well constructed story does not oversell and only shows the minimum necessary to convey the character’s motivations. Backstories are not always necessary, especially elaborate ones. All of the meta characters have backstories. They are given in their bios and brought up at some point or another in the story. But the backstories are not the majority of the characterization for these characters.

Unless I know their motivations, I cannot be attached to a character’s own philosophies in such a heartbeat

Motivations do not have to come from backstories. They can be brought forth by any number of methods. I would say that the motivations of every single meta character in Umineko is made clear. The need for specific explicit backstory in order to explain every motivation of every character is quite frankly ludicrous.

you just have to be convicted that their motivations drive them as a character, to the point that when they are forced to confront the inevitable change, you can feel the internal conflict that said character had to face, and, as such, that surge of emotions you get from seeing that character changing is just incomparable.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with backstory. Take my previous example of Tatami Galaxy. The main character of the story does not even have a name, let alone a backstory. However you follow his journey throughout the episodes, see his failures, learn his flaws, live his mistakes. And then you get to see him confront those, grow and overcome them. The experience is far more rewarding than seeing motivation coming out of a backstory, because it is motivation coming out of the story itself.

Backstories are only a single way to flesh out a character and add motivation. Ignoring all other information until it is confirmed via backstory is quite frankly crazy.

[Aspirety]

As they say, “without love, it cannot be seen.” You lack any love for the meta cast, so you are blinded to any characterisation they go through. You don’t even acknowledge them as characters. In the case of Dlanor, she has more characterisation than most of the cast. In the case of what you’re defining as ‘backstory’, it’s already been established that her backstory involves her commitment to SSVD, her stance on Knox’s decalogue, and the point of her being forced to kill her own father who broke his own rules.

It really just seems like you’re adopting a very tunnel-minded view to this. You’ve determined in yourself that the meta doesn’t matter, so you don’t care about any characterisation that does occur there. What you’re feeling is distanced from the main cast on Rokkenjima. Which we’ve already explained is an odd stance to make, since Chiru offers plenty of exploration of the cast on Rokkenjima. Look at Ep5 and all the attention Natsuhi’s character gets. EP6 is all about Yasu. EP7 lets us go back and investigate the stories of a number of the humans, look at Kinzo’s backstory! And EP8 is pretty much all about the family.

Nonetheless, you’re just limiting your own appreciation of the story by refusing to acknowledge anything outside of the Ushiromiya family. An openness is required to appreciate the many facets of Umineko, you can’t just choose run and run with it. It would be a mistake to focus solely on the witches and dismiss Rokkenjima as irrelevant. It’s not all about solving the mystery, and it’s definitely not all about preserving mystery. They’re just different parts which make up the totality of Umineko. It’s like if you read Rewrite and completely disregard everything in the character routes because they’re ‘just blueprints and not relevant to the main story’. Or conversely, if you completely rejected Moon and Terra because ‘they’ve got nothing to do with the rest of the story’. That kind of thinking just makes me really sad. Why would you limit your own enjoyment of something so much?

[Pepe]

Certainly not everyone is self-aware of everything about their own philosophies. However, I am aware of my own philosophies, does that make me not complex?

Perhaps that specific statement was an overstatement on my part; I apologize. What I want to say is that a character may or may not be truly convicted of what they claim their philosophy to be, and I think there should be some way to convict the reader to be convinced of the fact. Even if the character appears to be convinced of their own philosophies, without understanding the character on a deeper level, I personally would not be able to be convinced.

A well constructed story does not oversell and only shows the minimum necessary to convey the character’s motivations. Backstories are not always necessary, especially elaborate ones. All of the meta characters have backstories. They are given in their bios and brought up at some point or another in the story. But the backstories are not the majority of the characterization for these characters.

I do agree with you on the first statement; and what I am trying to say right now is that the Chiru does not give the minimum necessary to convey the character’s emotions and, from my own experience with reading it, I feel that including more details on these characters’ backstories would have achieved that which is minimally necessary.

What I am saying is that the bios and the little bits and details weren’t enough for me to fully appreciate the motivations of the characters in the metaworld, which is why I was complaining over the lack of a backstory. Even if you do get me to agree that backstory is not essential in achieving this, I still feel, with strong conviction, that Chiru failed to do so.

And while yes, having to explain the motivation for every character is indeed ludicrous, I would like to at least have this bare minimum to be able to empathize with the motivations of the metacharacters who are directly involved in the fight against each other; like, I can’t empathize with why Erika is so dead-set on cracking the mystery because the writing wasn’t able to attach this motivation to me. Unlike, say, Battler, who had a direct motivation that was touched very well upon, I could feel his struggle and his enjoyment when he fails and when he succeeds in his battle against Beatrice.

I agree. But that has nothing to do with backstory. Take my previous example of Tatami Galaxy. The main character of the story does not even have a name, let alone a backstory. However you follow his journey throughout the episodes, see his failures, learn his flaws, live his mistakes. And then you get to see him confront those, grow and overcome them.

Having not watched Tatami Galaxy, I can’t fully discuss it well enough; but the way you describe it sounds like the character’s motivations in the story are driven by the events of the story itself, and not by his experiences before the story. This seems like a stark contrast to the characters of Umineko, whose involvement and motivations in the story are all affected by their previous relationships with the other characters and their own personal struggles.

As they say, “without love, it cannot be seen.” You lack any love for the meta cast, so you are blinded to any characterisation they go through. You don’t even acknowledge them as characters.

You’ve determined in yourself that the meta doesn’t matter, so you don’t care about any characterisation that does occur there.

I don’t know how to say this without being rude to the author so let me just say this outright: Ryukishi07’s writing in Chiru was incapable of getting me to feel the importance of the characters in the metaworld. My current argument is that the reason I feel this way is because the backstory was lacking. Yes, even that example you gave about Dlanor was not sufficient for me to understand and empathize with her as a character. So it’s not that I determined in myself that the metaworld doesn’t matter, it’s that the writing wasn’t able to make me feel that it matters.

And because I wasn’t made to be able to care about the metaworld and it’s characters, I felt that the large amount of screentime it was given took away from my enjoyment of Chiru, as a whole. I’m trying to say that Chiru would have been better off without it. If it’s purpose was to complement the main story of Umineko by having meta characters represent the complex emotions of the characters in Rokkenjima, then I feel that it would have been better off if these complex emotions were shown through the words and actions of the characters (thinking back, they probably were already shown in the first four episodes) . And if it’s purpose was to provide an additional, interesting story on top of the one happening in Rokkenjima, then I am claiming that by the fact that it failed to get me to care for any of the meta characters, it also failed to be interesting.

So I am not in any way claiming that I refuse to acknowledge the occurrences simply because it isn’t part of the story that I was interested in; the only thing I am claiming is that it failed to be interesting, and thus took away from the rest of the story which I did find interesting. You know very well that I did not feel that way about Rewrite because, unlike Umineko, I found those distinct parts of the story equally interesting.

[ctom42]

I’m trying to say that Chiru would have been better off without it.

This is possibly the think you have said that I disagree with the most. Umineko would not be the masterpiece it was if not for the meta-elements. That’s what separates it from other excellently written mystery works. That added complexity, that expanded cast, that’s what elevates it to a level of it’s own.

Ryukishi07’s writing in Chiru was incapable of getting me to feel the importance of the characters in the metaworld

I’ve spent a lot of time reading other people’s thoughts and opinions on Umineko. Over in /r/visualnovels we have a weekly “what are you reading” thread and over the past 3 years I have read comments from many people reading Umineko and discussed all kinds of elements of the story with them. The characters in the story, including the meta characters, are one of the most universally praised elements of Umineko. Whenever popularity polls are held the meta characters overwhelmingly score higher than most of the humans

So claiming it is a fault of Ryukishi’s writing that prevents you from engaging with these characters is foolish. The majority of readers treat the meta characters as real and valid characters, who are interesting and engaging. Your hangups in this matter are your own. You are entitled to your opinions of course, but claiming it is a fault of the author when you are pretty much alone in this belief is ludicrous.

Anyway this has been a very interesting discussion. I hope you don’t feel I was too harsh or attacked you directly or anything. I look forward to discussing more about Umineko with you in the future.

[Pepe]

You are entitled to your opinions of course, but claiming it is a fault of the author when you are pretty much alone in this belief is ludicrous.

And that’s why I said I didn’t know how to say it without being rude. If I really do want to appreciate the rest of the cast, then perhaps I need to change my mindset in looking at the characters, because I simply cannot empathize with characters like Erika nor Dlanor unless I figure out why they are motivated the way that they are. However, I’m pretty proud of this mindset of mine as it has brought me the satisfaction of enjoying other pieces of fiction on a very emotional level.

I am also very well aware that these characters are quite popular; moreso than the characters from Rokkenjima, and these 4 years since I have finished reading Umineko I simply could not understand why. Perhaps one day, someone would be able to explain that to me, but all the previous explanations I have heard have fallen flat (majority of them being “but she’s soooo cool!!!”).

Maybe my biggest problem was that I did not, at any point, read it with the mindset of it being a mystery work. The entire time I was reading it, I did so as I would any other story: an adventure through the minds and motivations of the characters and how they deal with the events that transpire throughout the story. So I really wasn’t able see how the metaworld separates it from other mystery works when I didn’t really compare it with other mystery works, but with other fiction in general. I’ll be honest, I never even tried, let alone wanted, to figure out the mysteries behind the deaths in any of the chapters, because my mind was preoccupied with questions like “why was Rosa so shunned by her other siblings” and “why was Eva so desperate in claiming head of the family”.

Anyway this has been a very interesting discussion. I hope you don’t feel I was too harsh or attacked you directly or anything. I look forward to discussing more about Umineko with you in the future.

Indeed it has! It’s brought me a lot of self-awareness, more than anything. And hey don’t worry about it! I never really take arguments personally, so it’s all good~

[Aspirety]

Yeah, @ctom42 already put it pretty well, but it really just feels like you want Umineko to be something its not. The things you’re citing as issues, the existence of the metaworld - are the same things that people love about Umineko, and that make Umineko unique when compared to other similar murder mysteries. Without the Meta, Umineko would’ve remained just another murder mystery, and would’ve ended at Episode 1. Maybe a timeskip to Ange’s investigation from EP4. Maybe that would’ve been more to your tastes, but that’s not what Umineko is, and I can guarantee that people wouldn’t appreciate it half as much if that was all there was to it. Through the framing of the Metaworld, we can explore so much more of the Ushiromiya family, their motivations and whatnot, and the Rokkenjima incident that would’ve otherwise been possible. Just look at everything that Ushromiya Lion embodies, for example.

It’s fine if it’s not your thing, but don’t go criticising that as bad writing. This is a difference of taste, nothing more.

[Pepe]

To be fair, I only criticize it as bad writing looking solely from the perspective of “the metaworld is a separate story with separate characters each of which have their own motivations and character growth”. Elaborating further on why I consider it as such is just going to get me to start from the beginning of this whole debacle…

Coming from the perspective of “the metaworld is a story with characters that complement the thoughts and emotions of the characters in Rokkenjima”, however, then I can see it as something pretty creative, sure, but here is where I openly admit that it isn’t my cup of tea and would have preferred that the thoughts and emotions of the cast in Rokkenjima are shown through their own thoughts and actions. So yes, my lack of appreciation towards this facet of the metaworld is solely anchored on my own personal taste, I admit.

[DaBackpack]

There is a tangible reason for this change which is lost on a lot of newcomers (this was a pretty big deal when Umineko was still in progress).

Ryukishi’s best friend and one of the members of 07th Expansion, BT, passed away during the production of Episode 6.

Ryukishi was put in a huge depression because of this (he outright stated it) but chugged on with EP6 despite not being in the best state to carry it on. You can definitely find changes in tone from the Question arcs compared to the Answer arcs (at least post-EP5): part of this is thematic and intentional, but a lot of it was different for other reasons.

So this perceived change in tone and quality is not imaginary, but is a tangible reaction to a tragedy that befell 07th Expansion.

Do I think the quality suffered?

I haven’t read Umineko since 2011, and maybe I wasn’t a good enough reader to pick up on such subtleties, but I do remember enjoying the first four more than the second four — that might have been out of virtue of “questions are always more exciting than answers.”

EDIT: One more thing that might be responsible is the Shkanontrice reveal. I hate the “you had to have been there” argument, but this theory was actually reviled by the Western forum audience when Chiru was coming out.

I sympathize with them on the basis of —that— EP5 scene in the parlor which is flat-out unfair. (Shannon and Kanon ARE shown in the same scene, a scene which BEGINS in the perspective of Erika Furudo but then shifts perspective halfway through). I get that it’s legal strictly speaking, but this is the closest to an “unfair trick” as there is in the entirety of Umineko. The Shkanontrice reveal did not make a lot of people happy. Some of them DESPERATELY tried to enforce Rosatrice, which imo I find really lulzworthy, but hey I can’t entirely fault them for that.