Uhh, hi. Been awhile. Sorry for necro-ing I guess.
@UsagiTenpura: Considering the usage of identity with Battler vs. Tohya and Ange vs. " the children’s book author" I’d 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 can’t 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 I’ve 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 don’t 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 haven’t had much time recently.
In fact I had two files on my desktop, I am not even sure which one is the “newer” 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 Renall’s approach with this post (and actually, Renall’s 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 … might’ve changed a bit from what Renall wanted to get at. I don’t 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 Renall’s postings that inspired me was about the “intent” of the original author and “change of authorship”. 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 “self-insert” of the author in the stories as Yasu, instead I’ll either refer to Kanon or Shanon individually or use “Shkanon”. 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 Yasu’s 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)
Renall’s idea seems to have been (and I hope I didn’t 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 “make up” in the text of EP1, as well as the plot of both EP5 (at least the first twilight; the second twilight ultimately had “no love”, just like the entire game) and EP6. The last layer, the “prank layer” as I’ll 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 “script” stayed the same, but by overlooking the “prank layer” these murders were real (in the context of the story). Without love (or trutst) for these people, the public and Ikuko couldn’t see it (and I don’t think anyone can blame them for that, given the apparent death of everyone except Eva).
Ikuko wasn’t 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 might’ve intended (of course, until ‘someone’ interferes or ‘something’ goes wrong).
Bottom line, unlike Renall I don’t 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 isn’t 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 “reveal” that everyone jumped out and screamed “BAZINGA” at Battler’s dumbfounded face sadly was lacking (although it was stated that all the souls were resurrected in the Golden Land… 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 “easy portion” 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 Shannon’s 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 Shannon’s 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 Shannon’s and Kanon’s death are different from EP1. Considering the confrontation of both with Beatrice at their “death”, 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 assumed… well, I’ll let Dlanor speak (this is from “Our Confession”):
“Without love, it can’t be seen. They are her words. But I shall repeat them. Love exists in everyone’s hearts. Her true tragedy was that she couldn’t see it.” (Ryu also mentioned in an interview that she would’ve 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 (… 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 hasn’t 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 “fun” * little game.
[cut for length]
*… 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, doesn’t seem that fun to me but, you know… 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 I’d like to add: in EP7 TP Bernkastel confirms the following: “For 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 truth…!!”
Problem: this clashes with the manga. Although Bern might not be the most reliable source of information.
based on thoughts of Renall on the solution of EP1. It has odd logical problems (gunshots that should’ve 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 “mystery game in which no one was supposed to die”, although things always turned violent) [regarding EP5: see the manga solution]
the red truth isn’t necessarily wrong for EP1 though, they are the script of the play
as the day of Battler’s 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 “real” (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 Bern’s 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 more… erm… a side-effect. Didn’t really intend that but hey, I’ll 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.