of course I know about the hair color thing being from someone else, im just messing around with the others who dont know yet with that theory. the hair thing does still have some importance, it is a hint that battler and ange really are siblings born from the same parent.
Sounds like I missed something; what explanation are you referring to?
I would like to ask a question to people who have read all of Umineko, which can sound weird.
Is Lion actually Yasu?
Now Iām not talking about the background or events that revolve around it, what Iām trying to bring up is that even tho their lives have been completely different, thus a different ānurtureā, can we still see the same ānatureā in the two of them?
Some people may believe that people are entirely their upbringing, but if that was the case (as far as Ryuukishi is concerned) then Lion wouldāve been basically Jessica. Iām not minimizing the effect of nurture tho, as I think itās pretty clear it has a gigantic effect on someoneās life.
What I wonder is more wether or not we can still somehow recognize Lion as an actual alternate Yasu or if their discrepency are too large to reconcilliate and we end up having no choice but seeing them as different people altogether.
Also Karifean : Itās in the magic ending of arc8.
3 Likes
That really, really depends on what your definitions are and how close the variables have to be to be the same person. After all, if you are talking about it in the very strictest sense, then every single Fragmentās character is an entirely different person, as their life circumstances are highly unlikely to be exactly the same, as well as likely their choices in regards to these circumstances. So even if you were to go on the assumption of a tabula rasa human being, you would have to consider every single one to be a different person if you consider a person the sum of their life experiences.
However, on the other hand, if you were to go by their genetics, assuming they are all the same which might not even be true, though it very much could be something that you define as the same since its a less extensive series of events that doesnāt narrow down kakera to a very small number, they would be the same being considering their genetics. They also could be considered the same if you go by souls perhaps, but I donāt personally put much stock in souls so I do not wish to address it too much.
I personally would say that they are the same person but alternate beings, but thats because I do not believe in Tabula Rasa. Someone else who does believe in Tabula Rasa could consider them a different being, but then they would have to define which events make Yasu who they are so that they could define the restrictions on the backstories of the fragments.
tl;dr Philosophy things, it could be either or depending on your viewpoint.
1 Like
Uhh, hi. Been awhile. Sorry for necro-ing I guess.
@UsagiTenpura: Considering the usage of identity with Battler vs. Tohya and Ange vs. " the childrenās book author" Iād guess that at least a red could possibly deny that Lion is Yasu (after all, the difference between Yasu and Lion is probably bigger than between Battler and Tohya). Kinda lends itself to behaviorism and its belief, that given the right education a person could become anything (so, humans are a blank slate when born). Although I canāt imagine a single credible scientific institution signing extreme behaviorism nowadays, the basic idea of it is pretty popular in fiction in east asia (probably because, according to cliches, asian people tend to view behavior of a person in the context the behavior was made, while westerners tends to infer an underlying personality from certain behavior; thus giving personality less importance than a context a person was raised in). Of course, psychology nowadays, as always, has come to realize that both personality and context-sensitive behavior are a thing. Imagine that, took them roughly 50 years to reach that point.
Little anime/manga example for extreme and extremely hot and bothered behaviorism-action: Monster by Urasawa Naoki.
I have a theory/post that Iāve had lying on my desktop for months now. I probably will never come around to rework it. Whenever I think about it I either get caught up in problems of the theory or want to add even more to the text. How about I give the text in full with a synopsis afterwards? I personally do not think that it goes anywhere, I do not think that Ryu intended any of this, therefore I donāt think this is worth putting much more time into it. But maybe someone else gets cool ideas from it. At least I like some consequences of it and I like thinking about Umineko, although I havenāt had much time recently.
In fact I had two files on my desktop, I am not even sure which one is the ānewerā one. Some manga spoilers are referenced. Will try to remove at least a few lines that are not important.
[quote]Originally, I wanted to summarize Renallās approach with this post (and actually, Renallās postings in this thread are the very reason I decided to register in the first place), but as I wrote down some of the thoughts I had it ā¦ mightāve changed a bit from what Renall wanted to get at. I donāt think by any means that any of this is true -or rather, intended by Ryukishi - but maybe some of your folks have further ideas (or proof that directly goes against it, I do not claim that there is any direct proof aside the few references to other episodes). [stuff cut for length]
The part of Renallās postings that inspired me was about the āintentā of the original author and āchange of authorshipā. With the original author I mean Yasu. Having followed the discussions on anime-suki, I also use Yasu exclusively for the author of Legend and Turn (among other stories that we do not see). I do not refer to the āself-insertā of the author in the stories as Yasu, instead Iāll either refer to Kanon or Shanon individually or use āShkanonā. I do this for the same reason we call this person Yasu in the first place: we could also call this person Sayo (Yasuda), but that might get confusing. It is important to make a distinction, even if Yasuās self-insert shares her emotional struggles (which is kind of the point). If you insert yourself into a story, you are still not the character in the story, but the author of a story about yourself.
The truth of the future overwrites the truth of the past. (EP4)
Renallās idea seems to have been (and I hope I didnāt screw up this part!) that there is the narrative layer (which later on turns more and more into obvious fantasy), a mystery layer, and another layer. The murders in EP1 are, according to his idea, all staged. And this play went according to the mystery layer, a script to the play - a solution to the murders was included, but all of those murdered were merely putting on an act according to the script. This relates to the various hints towards āmake upā in the text of EP1, as well as the plot of both EP5 (at least the first twilight; the second twilight ultimately had āno loveā, just like the entire game) and EP6. The last layer, the āprank layerā as Iāll call it (names are not my strength), is about the original intent, that no one actually died. [Dlanor referenced a third layer in Our Confession]
The truth of the past, when Yasu wrote it, before the conference of 1986, was that Legend was a story of a prank. The truth of the future, after the conference in which seemingly everyone except Eva died, made everyone reading this story assume that the murders in this story are supposed to be real (in the context of the story). And with murder there is a crime - the intent changed. And this was taken up by Ikuko when she started working on the Rokkenjima Massacre. The Red Truth overwrites this story of a prank retroactively (see EP6, logic error construction). It twisted the story - not by changing the mystery layer that Yasu already included, the āscriptā stayed the same, but by overlooking the āprank layerā these murders were real (in the context of the story). Without love (or trutst) for these people, the public and Ikuko couldnāt see it (and I donāt think anyone can blame them for that, given the apparent death of everyone except Eva).
Ikuko wasnāt the only one involved. By rejecting the witch and insisting that it is a mystery, a mystery that needs a crime, the people in Legend died, as the original intent was forgotten (see: Teaparty of EP1, once Battler rejects the witch, the cousins and Shkanon die) - in a way Battler himself twisted the story as well when Tohya confronted with the reality that was the Rokkenjima Massacre.
Later on Battler claimed to have understood it all at the end of EP5. His game board turned the story back into the story of a prank . A story that is closer to what Yasu mightāve intended (of course, until āsomeoneā interferes or āsomethingā goes wrong).
Bottom line, unlike Renall I donāt directly discuss the validity of the red. Yasu in her love for mystery added a consistent mystery layer to her story, therefore the red technically isnāt wrong. The events that followed the writing of this story, the conference in 1986, however washed away the original intent of an innocent, slightly (understatement) mischievous story into a proper mystery with actual murders taking place. The ārevealā that everyone jumped out and screamed āBAZINGAā at Battlerās dumbfounded face sadly was lacking (although it was stated that all the souls were resurrected in the Golden Landā¦ and if people only died in script, it is of course easy for them to come back after the play).
Believe it or not, this is the āeasy portionā of this idea. The biggest problem I myself have with this train(wreck) of a thought is EP2. Could it still fit into this approach of an original intent, of a mere prank?
Given the description of Shannonās corpse in white text, at close distance, I find it hard to believe that the intent is still the same, that no one died. Can this be an evolution, a process that Yasu went through while writing more and more stories? From her first story Legend (THIS is pure speculation, obviously, we do not know in which order the stories were created, merely an assumption based on the presentation of the story; after all, technically Turn was found first by the police, but was told second, see EP4) - the story of a prank - to Turn. A story in which at least Shannonās death seems to be confirmed without a doubt by the white text description from Battler (and by extension, at least George and Gohda would be dead too; I also doubt that Nanjo and Kumasawa would enjoy lying about in the rain). In this episode, the circumstances of Shannonās and Kanonās death are different from EP1. Considering the confrontation of both with Beatrice at their ādeathā, considering the deeply rooted fears Yasu had, in Turn actual death is a possibility. Maybe Shkanon in the story revealed the state of her body to first Jessica, then George. And Yasu assumedā¦ well, Iāll let Dlanor speak (this is from āOur Confessionā):
āWithout love, it canāt be seen. They are her words. But I shall repeat them. Love exists in everyoneās hearts. Her true tragedy was that she couldnāt see it.ā (Ryu also mentioned in an interview that she wouldāve been surprised had she actually opened up to George)
Yasu assumed that no person would be capable of loving her. Revealing her body would lead to refusal. To loneliness. In Turn both Jessica and George reacted disgusted (ā¦ because she wrote the story and therefore their reaction). Rejected her very being.
After being rejected even by George, Shkanon ultimately decided to end her life, and of those present. To preserve her mystery, in homage to the one love that hasnāt rejected her yet.
By the time Yasu wrote Turn, her mindset had changed. The innocent story of a prank more and more turned into a story of her insecurities, fears. And she believed that all those fears would be true. And she wrote many, many more stories (at least it is implied), that may have taken even more a turn for the dark. In which killing everyone became a catharsis (I think this is addressed in the EP8 manga). She herself lost her intent of creating a mean, but ultimately āfunā * little game.
[cut for length]
*ā¦ well, the entire idea of a mystery game in which various people seem to die with only one person out of the loop, fearing for his live, doesnāt seem that fun to me but, you knowā¦ who is gonna judge taste? If we assume that she originally just wanted to slide the story under his doorframe and have him solve it during his stay there it is at least not completely unreasonable I suppose. [/quote]
One thing Iād like to add: in EP7 TP Bernkastel confirms the following: āFor fun, you wrote several cat box tales, and planned to seal them in message bottles like the end of a mystery novel you loved. Then you threw them into the sea. To save those who woudl suffer in they knew the truthā¦!!ā
Problem: this clashes with the manga. Although Bern might not be the most reliable source of information.
Synopsis:
-
based on thoughts of Renall on the solution of EP1. It has odd logical problems (gunshots that shouldāve been heard). According to him the mystery story makes more sense if no one actually died in EP1.
-
original intent of Yasu while writing the mystery stories is disucussed: proposal that originally, in her stories, no one died, she wrote the stories for fun and for Battler to remember her by their shared hobby (the later episodes, EP4 to EP6 and EP8 all reference a āmystery game in which no one was supposed to dieā, although things always turned violent) [regarding EP5: see the manga solution]
-
the red truth isnāt necessarily wrong for EP1 though, they are the script of the play
-
as the day of Battlerās arrival drew nearer, she kept writing, but her own original intent was lost in the writing; it was no longer fun and games, but turned into a way of torturing others, and herself
-
EP2 was no longer fun and games, an evolution happened between Legend and Turn (see: Shannons suicide, all the scenes between Shannon/Kanon and Beatrice)
-
due to the truth of the future overwriting the truth of the past, the original intent, that no one was supposed to die in these mystery games, was lost. In the future it was a well-known fact that many people died on Rokkenjima and Yasu herself lost this aspect in the course of writing more and more stories
-
because of the property of the truth of the future, the red truth was actually a very harmful thing to the original intent, because this red truth took over and made the murders ārealā (in the context of the story) in a way, Battler [and thus, in a way, we the readers] in our endless convinction that Umineko is a mystery, we made the murders real. A mystery needs a crime after all. And as Battler forced more and more red truth out of Beatrice, more and more the original intent was destroyed.
-
this theory could repair the problem between Bernās comments on the writing process (it was all fun and games) and the manga (in which the writing is shown to be an emotionally harmful process for Yasu) by going the boring route: both are true, both happened. Although this is moreā¦ ermā¦ a side-effect. Didnāt really intend that but hey, Iāll take what I can get.
Again, thanks to anyone who bothered to even just read the synopsis. Sorry for never straighening out the text, but the alternative would mean that this text would probably just go straight to the bin eventually.
2 Likes
Hello, i have created a video on explanation of meta-world in umineko. Please let me know your views, if you check it out 
1 Like
While I think Iāve figured out most things regarding the nature of the Metaworld-there are things I still wonder about.
One of them is Battlerās existence. While we know for a fact that he is (I suppose you can say) a fragment of Tohyaās soul who ādiedā along with Beatrice and got amnesia and is essentially a 1:1 carbon copy of EP1 Battlerā¦
his affection for Beato in the first four episodes when it pops up is a little confusing. Is Battler slowly falling in love with her of his own accord? Thatās plausible, but a bit unlikely. Or is his growing feelings for her being subconsciously affected? He doesnāt make any reference to amnesia for most of the Episodes, so Iām not sure if its because he didnāt notice due to being a carbon copy of Ep1 Battler or something else.
2 Likes
Battler in the meta is an interesting topic to think about. In my eyes, Battler can join the others in the metaworld precisely because real Battler ādiedā along with the others at Rokkenjima, putting his time on Rokkenjima and continued existence into a catbox just like everyone else. As far as the metaworld is concerned, heās not Tohya, heās the Battler who lived a normal life up to October 4th 1986 and everything past that is āunwrittenā, and can be any conceivable possibility.
As for Battler falling for Beato. Well she is his ideal woman, itās only natural heās slowly falling for her =P
1 Like
Wellā¦Amakusa is my kinda guy. But I donāt think I would start falling for him if he started torturing me and my family unless I had some sort of background with him.
Battler was having a ton of fun for most of Episodes 1-4 though.
I suppose youāre right.
ā¦Though this does call into question Battlerās moral compass and what he really valuesā¦
I was wonderingā¦could Umineko be considered ahead of its time? During 2011-2013 I had noticed that there was quite a lot of hatred toward Ryukishi and Umineko especially. But, in 2015 to now, the narrative became much more positive and understanding.
Its sort of like what happened with MGS2 I guess.
Umā¦ Hatred? I hadnāt read Umineko (Much less be around the fandom) during that time, so can I get a elaboration please?
Eh, from little I remember (was in middle school that time), people were calling Ryukishi āa hackā and that Umineko was āpretentious garbage,ā and that all Umineko amounted to 'was just a daydream ala Inception.
It was pretty vicious.
Umineko is somewhat reviled in Japan as far as I recall. Itās controversial everywhere but in Japan the majority clearly swings negative. Umineko cost Ryukishi a lot of the popularity he built up with Higurashi.
I donāt think it softened much in the meantime, really. You just get exposed to more positivity towards it in circles like this one.
Yeah what Karifean said. I havenāt noticed any trend toward more people liking it over time, thereās always been people who love Umineko and people who hate it. Of course, in a community like this youāll find most people singing itās praises, but even here itās not without criticism.
As Karifean and Aspirety say, my experience has unfortunately been the reverse. Back in the early days when I modded redditās /r/visualnovels community, Umineko was pretty widely praised and it was fairly frequently discussed. However itās changed a bit since then. I donāt want to drag up any drama, so I wonāt go into details and Iāll just say there are mod members there now who absolutely loathe Umineko, and unfortunately that attitude has emboldened those who like to sneer at any mention of it.
This is all very nice but could we please get back to my original question?
Besides, if anything Iām seeing more of a surge in positivity towards Umineko in Reddit.
This is all very nice but could we please get back to my original question?
The issue was that your central premise, that Umineko was becoming more popular, didnāt seem to match what everyone else here had experienced. If Uminekoās popularity or acclaim hasnāt grown, then it canāt really be āahead of its timeā as you asked. Unless āits timeā is still ahead of us even now. Iād love to be wrong, Iād love it if Umineko had shaped the VN scene and resulted in more stories of a similar vein, but unfortunately I havenāt seen much proof of that.
1 Like
Well thereĀ“s Fata Morgana.