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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[[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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s true. I’m not saying Umineko should’ve changed to prosecuting the guilty, mainly because everyone’s already dead.
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:
A denial of ability to know objective truth, which would lead to epistemological idealism;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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:
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?
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.
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
So to answer your questions, this time on a personal level:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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~
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.
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.
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.
If I were to resume as simply as possible my disappointment in Chiru it revolves around the idea that Umineko is solvable with arc 1-2-3-4 alone, as was said in red.
This implies that whatever couldn’t be concretely solved or even be thought about from the question arcs alone aren’t really what needed to be solved in Umineko. The answer was meant to have a lot of “dark zones” which were left to our imagination as long as we understood the essential, which revolves around Sayo’s heart.
Everything else that Chiru bought forward as “answer” or “backstory” that couldn’t be concretely guessed at or sometimes at all was often so stupid that I find myself more satisfied accepting the fantasy narrative then the mystery one. Kinzo’s backstory ranks very high there. Too many things that were basically metaphors were given concrete equivalent that distracted the story from it’s own points and messages and were better left in their abstract state. It really feels like most mystery answers are basically comparable to fantasy answers - the same abstract ideas are given concrete shapes and sounds about as absurd after the process, except one of them takes itself seriously whie the other has a premise anchored in suspension of disbelief.
Beside that I also find arc6 to be overall a disappointment of a story. I’m not going to say it’s outright bad, but as the arc with Battler as gamemaster that was supposed to be his answer to Beatrice - and especially after the end of arc5 - I believe I’m not alone in having had high expectations from it which left a rather empty feeling afterward. Are my expectations wrong? Perhaps. But gamemaster Battler arc! Come on. I’m sure Ryuukishi would’ve done something much better if not for the event that crushed him then. It is afterall Umineko’s finale. Arc 7-8 are basically epilogue arcs. Arc7 could even have been numbered arc0 in many ways and arc8 could’ve been outright called the epilogue. I have nothing against this, I’m just saying that as the finale arc6 should’ve aimed to be the most memorable arc possible. As far as I know it tends to be pretty low in “arc ranking” in people’s opinion, so I don’t think it’s entirely biased to say that it failed to be on par with what it should’ve been.
On a final complaint I will say that there’s obviously many dropped plotlines, some of which were very promising to me and I personally would’ve hoped they got pursued further.
Hm, I´ve been meaning to tackle this topic for a while and I think now that I have assembled most of my thoughts, I can discuss it.
First off, it should be recognized that Chiru is a mystery and whoever states otherwise is full of shit.
But anyway, despite my immense love for Chiru, I can recognize its problems, and I think its best to start off with the criticism first.
The Answers
Unlike Usagi, I actually liked most of Umineko´s answers and thought a good chunk of them were very clever and well thought out (EP3 closed room anyone?), even if some of them were a bit on the ridiculous side. However, I think that the way the answers were presented was a bit poor. For example, in the EP8 manga, a lot of time is spent really explaining why and how Sayo is the way she is. While this is all fine and good, the same cannot be said about the answers to the mysteries.
Its not that the answers to the mysteries is bullshit (though I would argue that EP4´s ¨everyone is the accomplice¨, is pushing it), its the way they are presented. The answers are to one note. For example, Erika states that one of the answers to EP5 was that Beatrice met with the adults in the parlor and bribed them. That´s literally all she says. While the answer does make quite a bit of sense after you put a bit of thought into it, I´d prefer if Erika´s deduction addressed all part´s of the mystery.
Such as why the adults decided to trust Beatrice. Of course it makes sense why they would but Erika doesn´t go into it. And there is also the problem of some of the answers sounding dumb on paper when they make sense in application and few relying a bit on convenience.
Basically, Ryukishi made his concrete answers really vague and that hurt the mystery a bit for me. I shouldn´t have to explain the answers-especially if they make quite a bit of sense after thinking about it. Willard and Erika should have gone more ¨in depth.¨ Though I will admit that I am conflicted on this as I don’t really like textbook style answers.
Also, certain things about the mystery aren´t answered (though they can be explained through context clues so I´m not sure if this is a flaw.)
Too many things going on
While I do appreciate Chiru´s attempt to explore a wide range of topics and have multiple storylines at once, even though Ryukishi succeeded wonderfully at a lot of them, I feel like the story focus was a bit…muddled at times and it didn´t help that new characters were introduced every EP. Dawn is probably a good example of biting off more than you can chew. Also, two plotlines in particular felt redundant but at least are contained to their specific Episode, with one of them being dropped entirely (but for reasons that were understandable at least.)
The Meta
This one is a bit more subjective, but I still think its important. While the Metaworld is easily the greatest thing about Umineko as a whole, and I love the way Chiru handled it for the most part, I think that the meta overshadowed too many things and the narrative structure-while good-could get rather weird at certain parts. Also I would like to mention that the way the Meta works gets extremely confusing sometimes. Also, Also, while the execution of its storylines and themes is generally applause worthy, I feel like the messages can get a bit muddled during the examination process-which is a bit unfortunate even though clarification is always provided.
Anyway, those are my three main points of criticism about Chiru other than the fact that it could have used more polish. I´ll go into the AMAZING parts of Chiru in another post and despite my criticism-I still gave it a 7/10.
Because I don’t want to make my original post to long, I will now write why Umineko Chiru is actually the lovechild of NGE and Utena, and why its the best thing since sliced bread.
AMBITION
The thing about Chiru, is that Umineko wouldn’t be Umineko without it. While I think 1-4 is comparable to FMAB in quality, Chiru is what MAKES Umineko so fucking special and unique. From the things Chiru explores (the nature of truth and magic, theme of love, nature of humans), to how Ryukishi masterfully makes the logic battles into meaningful studies of the mystery genre and the mystery itself as well as characters (whereas in lesser stories it would’ve become formulaic), and finally to the way that Ryukishi creates his message.
Its one of a kind and so unlike many visual novels I have ever read. God bless Dragonknight and his wonderful mind.
EVOLUTION
Edit note: I’ll add on more and go further in depth later in the week, I still have the assemble most of my thoughts, but this is what I came up with so far. So stay tuned~! (I’ll continue this post guys, I just have to sort my thoughts out)
This is an old topic and Im a bit late to the party, but reading through I wanted to comment my little idea as to why;
Now, personally, Chiru was what made my love for Umineko solidify. I absolutely adore everything about it.
I feel like what irritated some folks about Chiru and feeling as if it suddenly turned a 180 was essentially I feel the prominence of the “outsiders” raised (Bernkastel and Lambdadelta) and of course, Miss Erika Furudo is one of the biggest points here. People either loved her or absolutely detested her. She was seen as an outright “Mary Sue” ( of course I dont think so, but she was famous for being called one) and seemed to trod in with mud covered shoes to Battler and Beatrice’s dynamic.
Alongside the shift in tone to be much more meta focused and the Eiserne Jungfrau’s introduction, and Beatrice taking a step to the side and Erika being in the limelight - the world built up in Ep1-4 seemed to tumble down or even to some suddenly crash. The theme was one of Agatha Christie / Occult aesthetics, and overall mystery aura, and it went into a completely different aura into the characters taking apart the story as if they were like us, the readers, that could leave some feeling detached or as if it was a completely different story.
Most were expecting a Battler focused Ep, an Ep of reflection and redemption on his sin; but with all the new characters and events, and especially Erika’s presence, left a lot feeling cold to Chiru I feel.
