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

[Aspirety]

There will be unmarked spoilers for the entirety of Umineko in this topic.

This was a topic of discussion that popped up on the Discord last night, and I’d like to go further with it. It was mentioned by Ami that Umineko Chiru lost Ryukishi a lot of fans because, comparing it to the first four episodes, it suddenly went off the rails and ended up surrendering everything it built up to that point, to paraphrase.

I’m interested in exploring this further. Why do you feel this way Ami? It’s not the first time I’ve encountered this opinion, but I can’t say it’s one I wholeheartedly agree with. Throughout my reading of Umineko I never felt like it was going back on itself or suddenly changing. I’ll admit, Chiru does feel very different to the core arcs for many reasons such as the changes to the cast, the more structured mystery games, Battlers pursuit and defence of Beatrice’s heart, etc. But to me it felt like a natural progression, not anything out of left field like I’ve heard a few people argue.

I suspect this might reflect a difference in how readees approach Umineko. With its multifaceted nature, there are so many differing interpretations presented in the VN that it can become difficult to reach a conclusion on how to approach the story. But throughout the whole thing, these key elements of protecting the dignity of the individual over blindly pursuing the truth continue showing up. If you approach the story from the perspective that it’s just a mystery to be solved, I can see why people would be disappointed with Chiru. But maintaining that viewpoint would be the same as ignoring all the scenes displaying character development, all the magical scenes with some very touching messages to be found. It’s as if the reader is tunnel-minded, focusing only on their own interpretation of the story and ignoring anything contrary. It’s only when you take a more wholistic perspective that you can see that maybe it’s not ALL about the mystery, and the mysteries are just some neat flavour. When you realise just how much Beatrice played the villain, and how the game boards were constructed not just to be solved, but to teach Battler a lesson, it all makes sense. It’s like luring your child with the promise of something they love, but using the time gained to communicate something very important to them. Sure, we come for the fun, but we stay for something more.

At least, that’s what I can say about my experience reading Umineko. I’d love to hear some differing opinions.

EDIT: Didn’t realise this conversation was also happening in general, moved some posts here.

[RedEspeon]

I, for one thought that the Chiru arcs were fantastic. It introduced a larger cast of characters to deal with the evolving plot of the series and to give Battler a different opponent, since at the beginning of Chiru, Beatrice is comatose from her logic battle with Battler in the EP4 Tea Party. Erika is a personal favorite of mine, and does a good job at going head-to-head with Battler (no where near as good as Beatrice though).

The Chiru arcs also expanded upon the motivation of Bernkastel and why she might want Beatrice to lose, which I enjoyed very much. She went from this enigmatic character that popped in every now and then, to being directly involved with the events surrounding the game-boards.

It is, however, a huge step away form the previous game. It’s no longer about finding out the truth, but about questioning whether some truths should be left untouched and left to interpretation for peace of mind. Personally, I feel that there are some truths that could be left alone, I can see why many mystery fans lost interest with the Chiru arcs.

Maybe it’s just me liking the meta-plot of Chiru more than the mystery aspect of the original, but I did not find Chiru disappointing at all and feel that it holds up equally to the original.

[Karifean]

So me and @ctom42 were just talking on Discord about how and why many people started disliking Umineko during Chiru.

From what I gather, the people in question never really cared for the metaworld plot and instead just loved the concept of having a mystery with red truth to read deeply into and pick apart. With that kind of approach I can see how Chiru might end up being disappointing, as it not only greatly cuts back on those kinds of mysteries (and spends a ton of time on the metaworld plot) but also actively scolds that kind of ‘loveless’ engagement. I guess you could say it alienated the Erikas of the reader base.

What do you think?

[ghagler]

Umineko When They Cry General Discussion

but also actively scolds that kind of ‘loveless’ engagement.

I think this is part of the reason why a lot of people got a bit miffed. Ryukishi took a lot of inspiration from the mystery genre in writing this (obviously), especially from the likes of Agatha Christie and her novel And Then There Were None.

Thing is: those mystery novels were conceived as games between the reader and writer. Umineko was no different: the (ep. 2 spoilers) Red Truth and Blue Truth and so on are just more direct uses of evidence/clues versus the reader’s/detective’s theories.

So it’s natural that we become interested in the truth of the matter. But Ryukishi’s message became, to paraphrase it: (full spoilers) “to approach these games with love means you shouldn’t open the box. Let Schrodinger’s box stay closed; let the answer be magic.” The reasoning behind this answer was that it would be cruel to expose the truth of the tragedy, thus ending all these other possibilities: these stories of love and sacrifice and joy.

(cont.) The only problem with that is…it contradicts the whole point of the mystery genre. The mystery genre has always approached things after an evil deed: someone has died. As Van Dyne says, nothing short of murder will suffice: a life must be ended. Then the mystery begins, all motivated by the goal of finding the killer because, by their deeds, a life ended. It is the ultimate evil of this world - to make someone depart it early.

In the end, mysteries are always focused on the truth because they’ve already learned the most terrible truth: someone has been murdered. To ignore the reality behind that is never considered love; on the contrary, love demands the truth.

This might also tie into religion a bit, since the creator of the Decalogue would preach every year the statement: “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light”

Of course, Ryukishi had a lot of other points to make, as well. But I think the impression and critique he gave of “trying to solve the mystery” ran against this deep current of “those who seek the truth” which lies at the heart of mystery and murder.

[StarTurner]

I don’t have much to add on to this conversation myself, but I agree with what @Aspirety said, when I first read through Chiru I didn’t like it as much as I thought I would, but I took a while to think about everyone that had happened up to that point, how at first Umineko was just about finding the truth, but Chiru was questioning the truth, it made me think a lot, and I’ve come to really like Chiru, perhaps more than the first four episodes.

[Karifean]

Hmm, this is also interesting to me, because I definitely do not think Ryukishi07 is against pursuing the truth; rather, he makes a point that “the facts” alone do not make the whole picture. You can see this in Willard very well. He seeks the truth, but he is neither arrogant about it nor did he judge the culprit as being irredeemably evil when he did find it.

Yes, Yasu was the one who committed the crime. But the years before that are what brought about this tragedy. Every one of the people on the island contributed in some form or another to Yasu’s final decision to go through with it. Genji, Nanjo and Kumasawa kept her in the dark about her past and true heritage for the sake of the one who raped his daughter, who happens to be Yasu’s mother. All of the siblings’ loveless relationships with one another ever since they were kids create an atmosphere of toxicity that affects Yasu just as much. George’s love for “Shannon” drove Yasu further into the corner of playing that role even though she cannot fulfill it, while Eva’s sweetly aggressive whisperings remind her that she’s furniture, furniture, furniture and absolutely not fit for a good kid like George. …

The readers acknowledging these truths and not denying their importance is what I believe to have been Ryukishi’s goal. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t seek the truth. On the contrary, you should, but the truth is more than the whodunnit and howdunnit; there is also the whydunnit.

And this is only furthered by the Episode 7 Tea Party. We can see that even if Yasu doesn’t commit the crime the underlying toxicity in the Ushiromiya family STILL causes the crime to occur. Yasu doesn’t do it, but that doesn’t change the circumstances and the powder keg is still ready to blow, and it can just as easily be someone else’s hands that ultimately do it. It’s like Kyrie says to Eva: “You’re just a murderer who didn’t get a chance.” The atmosphere in the Ushiromiya family is wretched to the point where just about anyone of them would have committed mass murder given the proper situation. See also Eva in Episode 3.

So again, seeking out the whodunnit and howdunnit is not enough. What Umineko really wants you to do is grasp the whole situation, everything that brought things to this point where the crime ultimately happens.

Well this was a bit of a tangent. Of course even if I consider all of this to be Umineko’s true goal and purpose, and even if I am right about it, it doesn’t matter; what matters is why people do believe Umineko to advocate keeping the truth locked away. So I’d like to ask you, 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)?

[ctom42]

) to approach these games with love means you shouldn’t open the box. Let Schrodinger’s box stay closed; let the answer be magic

I would disagree with this interpretation. Letting the answer be magic only really applies to Umineko when we talk about Rokkenjima Prime, or the real truth. This is a concept that doesn’t even really come up until episode 4 and then is shelved again until late episode 7. The message is that no one knows what really happened, no one can prove it, so obsessing over is not going to improve your life in any way.

The actual boards in Umienko all have solutions. Episode 7 provides an answer key, but it does so in a way that doesn’t give away the solution if you haven’t already figured it out. It certainly gives hints, but it doesn’t give straight answers.

The mystery of Umineko ends with episode 7. Episode 8 is about wrapping up Ange’s journey. But people who claim the game abandons mystery are wrong. Any claim that Umineko is not a game between the reader and author is false. Umineko was a much more direct game between the reader and author than any other mystery I have ever read. That was never abandoned or turned away. Hell even in episode 8 when the mysteries had all been solved the game gave the most direct interaction and had the absolutely brilliant purple truth mystery.

Umineko doesn’t tell you the answer to what “really happened”. But it doesn’t tell you to just forget about it and that it doesn’t matter. It tells you to think on your own and find you own answer. And that is infinitely more valuable than some staged reveal would ever be.

I said on discord that Chiru was a natural progression from 1-4. Umineko is a story that slowly unfolds as you get deeper and deeper into it. It adds more layers and frames through which it can be viewed as it goes on. Each of these layers builds off the previous ones and non of them invalidate each other.

People claim that 1-4 were better because they focused on the mystery, but some of the best mysteries of the entire story are in 5 and 6. Not only that but 5 and 6 focus on a crucial aspect of mystery that had been lacking, the motive. People complain that not enough new mysteries were introduced, but then they complain that not enough answers were given. Episode 7 is all about answers, you can’t keep giving new mysteries forever after all.

The people who think Chiru was some kind of jarring change from 1-4 never saw Umineko for what it was. After episode 1 it should have been obvious that Umineko was not just a mystery. But the people who claim that by the end the mystery doesn’t matter are also missing out on the point. Umineko is an incredibly complex mystery and so much more, but it is still a mystery at heart. It’s a story that can be enjoyed without the mystery or enjoyed with only the mystery, but both of those viewpoints are missing out on a large portion of what makes Umineko a masterpiece.

[Aulin]

Well, indeed I think that one of the games with more mistery, to say it in some manner, is the 5th Game, with all Knox’s Rules and Dlanor, also it has a bi part of the story just dedicated to explain the mistery of that arc so… I don’t think that Chiru looses the mistery part.

I entered Umineko because of the mistery and I didn’t see it loosing it’s importance until ep8 (and maybe some parts of ep6) but an explanation for the things that happen on a mistery is also neccesary, not only the why, but the feels of the characters are really well portrayed in Chiru (Natsuhi for example, Jessica, almost everyone gets a lot of more development in Chiru). It looses the dynamic way of the first four episodes in which we had Beato since ep2 trolling Battler really hard and it was all red truth versus blue truth, fantasy versus mistery. But Chiru also have that, all the things that concern the Logic Error in Dawn for example.

As some of you said before, it also teaches the reader of the novel that there are some things that you’ll be happier if you don’t know, and that there are some truths that are better unknown that known. @RedEspeon said that Chiru was about questioning the truth, and what truths should be respected, in the sense of leaving them unknown, and others should be told to everyone, I completely agree on that point of view with Chiru.

Also we have Chiru’s manga adaptation that, in my opinion aside from being a great adaptation talks too much about truths and about the catbox, I would’ve liked more the manga if they had left things more like they were in the novel, not by not adding things but, telling “all” the truth so graphically…

[Pepe]

This is a very personal opinion of mine so I am just going to go ahead and say it without care of the consequences; yes, I disliked Chiru, and I thought it was bad progression from the excitement of the first 4 chapters. I disliked the introduction of the meta world, of Erika Furude, Willard Wright, Dlanor, and pretty much all the characters whose main purpose was to give a characterization to the mystery aspects of the novel.

See, what I liked the most about the first four episodes was the character interaction between the members of the Ushiromiya family. The numerous different cases of the first 4 chapters was able to show an extremely diverse set of relationships between the characters, and how they can easily change in a heartbeat depending on the situation. However, while I won’t say that totally disappeared in Chiru, I would say that it took a backseat from the metaworld. Instead, I felt Chiru struggled more on, well, answering the story and using an immensely deep metaworld to do that.

And, to be honest, I did not appreciate that. Even if the goal was to answer all the questions from the first four episodes, using a metaworld of witches and furniture, of character representations of a list of rules that are decades old and limits authors in their storytelling, was in bad taste. 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 makes the readers more involved in a world away from Rokkenjima; a world I thought was less engaging and more fantastical. And most of all, it brings you into a world which I feel is just impossible to relate to; the metaworld of Umineko is a metaworld of the mystery genre, and is no longer a world where character goals can be put into a human perspective. I don’t care about characters, who represent a specific point-of-view of mystery solving, duke it out in flashy battles as a representation of people duking it out when solving mysteries; I care about the stories of humans, life, and what a story does to humans and how they react to it.

Oh hey, I just realized that I ended up laying bare all of my gripes with Umineko. Honestly, I am quite afraid that this sort of thing is going to happen once I reach the answers arc of Higurashi, and it may just leave a bad taste in my mouth again.

[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.