[Burichan]  [Futaba]  [Nitronet]  [nitroib4f]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
This is torture that will not end until you can believe in witches.

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Post a Reply
File 136279818346.jpg - (759.26KB , 2429x1366 , rejection.jpg )
78 No. 78 edit
Setting aside for the moment the question of whether we need to know, whether it matters, etc., just who was responsible for all that stuff going down and/or blowing up anyhow?

Was Yasu a psycho killer burning down the house like that song by the Talking Heads, "And She Was?" Is she a hilariously effective scapegoat for some dickhead like George or Battler? Was it Kyrie randomly discarding all her characterization to go on a shooting spree for money she isn't able to prove actually exists? Did Maria finally show them, show them all? Comedy Ange Option?

Note that "fine Japanese munitions craftsmanship + Kinzo's gross negligence, stop building houses on top of bombs you dumbass" is an acceptable culprit proposal.
20 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 99 edit
File 13630291147.png - (13.95KB , 217x157 , kanonheh.png )
99
>>98
Haven't you seen his other videos? It seems he cares more about feeling "he's correct" than about Umineko.
>> No. 100 edit
File 136249172478.png - (794.40KB , 968x1041 , erika7.png )
100
>>99
Yeah, that seems fairly accurate. Although I'd expand that to say he cares more about believing that he's correct and everyone else is wrong than anything.
>> No. 101 edit
File 136303946145.png - (435.01KB , 639x1080 , akuwaraia2_agb.png )
101
Dawww c'mon, how can anyone with such a sweet face be a killer? She's just very protective is all. In that only she is allowed to hurt her daughter.

I suppose it's easier to get a comprehensible motive out of Rosa than most of the siblings, but they're all somewhat weak for the reasons the ep7 Tea Party kind of outlined. They have to be some combination of very desperate AND very gullible, and they rarely seem to be the former given how sharp they're portrayed.
>> No. 102 edit
File 136268608994.png - (153.93KB , 340x366 , erika1.png )
102
>>101
To be fair, I would say that Rosa is portrayed as much, much more mentally unstable than the other siblings. She also has the least people she cares about on the island compared to the others - most of them have a family of three, so it's hard to try and implicate any of them as soon as one of that group of three is killed, but Rosa only has Maria who tends to survive to the end anyway.

But to me, Rosatrice fails less with the 'culprit Rosa' part and more with the 'Beatrice' part. I don't doubt that Rosa could kill under certain circumstances - but killing everyone on the island for a magical ceremony, acting the 'Beatrice' part, is not something I can see her doing. Rosa's character simply does not fit with what we know about Beatrice at all, I feel. KNM had an incredibly hard time trying to dance around this issue, and his analysis of Rosatrice as a person promptly falls apart the moment you closely analyse practically any of the scenes where either Rosa OR Beatrice is present.

I think that most of the people who believe in his theory are just accepting what he says based on their vague memories of the series, because anyone who had tried actually rereading the series after watching his theory would very quickly realise what nonsense it is. Hence why places like AnimeSuki and /seacats/ where the community really know the series like the back of their hand have never taken his theory seriously; only the casual YouTube commenters who don't seem to stop to examine it in-depth but are instantly convinced by any intelligent and reasonable-sounding argument.
>> No. 103 edit
For me by far the biggest issue with any sort of Rosatrice thing is that Rosa seems to fall apart at the very mention of Beatrice, which doesn't really lend a lot of credibility to the idea that she could somehow also act as her, let alone do so in person (as in ep4). If she's as unstable as she is, to suddenly flip over into a collected and competent witch persona is just a hard thing to swallow. Clumsiness is something you can affect to appear less competent than you are. Psychosis is less so, and it'd be morally repugnant to do it the way Rosa does it (plus surely Maria would catch on). So I don't think her instability is an act.

The only reason it kinda works for Yasu is that Yasu lacks the baggage associated with understanding that Beatrice was a real person, making it easier to justify portraying her as a character. This is something which, most ironically, Rosa alone understands out of the siblings, because Rosa alone has actually seen a human Beatrice. If anything, that'd support the realization that you shouldn't pretend to be her, because the illusion doesn't exist for you (Rosa must've figured out that Beatrice was a secret child of her father's, if not immediately then reflecting on the incident over time).
>> No. 104 edit
>>102
I agree. I used to find it surprising how many people only read/watched Umineko for the story and never gave the mystery a single glance. I mean you would expect they would at least try for one of the closed rooms. Turns out majority do not.
I find it funny that KNW mentions "don't stop thinking" when that is exactly what he forcing them to do.

Or like anon says "he brainwashed them".
>> No. 105 edit
There's also a really good scene against Rosatrice in EP7 or something I think.
Maria is recalling the times she spent with Beatrice, and she mentions one prank they did to "the adults" with a toy car.
>> No. 106 edit
File 136318825625.png - (153.62KB , 606x480 , wdk_akuwaraic1.png )
106
>>105
Seacats Logic: Scarred by her meeting with Beatrice in 1967, Rosa still considers herself a child, and not one of the adults. There was plenty of supporting evidence in EP1 where Rosa often feels left out of the inheritance discussion due to being the youngest sibling -- a child!
>> No. 107 edit
File 136257762780.png - (166.36KB , 340x366 , Erika_Explaining.png )
107
>>103
The part about Rosa meeting Kuwadorian Beatrice is a very good point, actually. You'd think that would make her extremely unlikely to dishonor that Beatrice's name by calling herself Beatrice, and it would also mean she'd be less prone to fantastical notions about the nature of Beatrice in general.

Actually, if you really think about the implications of Rosa meeting Beatrice as a child, it makes EP7 make even less sense than it already does with KNM's ridiculous non-explanation. I mean, Gaap and Clair's designs were both meant to be Yasu's imaginations of what Beatrice might look like, since the portrait wasn't in place yet and she had nothing to go on except for the stories. But if Rosa had already seen the real Beatrice, she'd know exactly what she was supposed to look like, so she would have been able to use that image from the start.
>> No. 108 edit
>>107
Actually, this makes me wonder about Turn as well. Assuming we take it at face value that "Beatrice" (Suit-Beato) showed up in the garden and made her presence known to both Maria and Rosa, wouldn't Rosa be like "Hey wait a minute..."

I mean, if we assume the disguise works well enough to resemble the portrait witch at most glances (and it seems to convince Kyrie and Battler as much in ep2 and ep4 respectively), then that means that Rosa is seeing a person who bears a very strong resemblance to an individual she knows to be (1) much older than she should appear, and (2) dead.

Now assuming Rosa isn't totally dumb and gets over her initial reaction to this, what is the first thing she's gotta be thinking? She has to know Beatrice-1967 was her father's secret child. So wouldn't her next immediate leap of logic be "so this must be another one?"

Why then would she participate in the scheme? Why not just blab the whole thing to her siblings, which she's perfectly willing to do in Banquet although without the benefit of knowing another Beatrice exists? Is she motivated by remorse? She sure doesn't act like it.
>> No. 109 edit
File 136319774244.png - (866.93KB , 968x1041 , Erika_SmilePose.png )
109
>>108
Yeah, that discrepancy with Rosa's attitude to Beatrice between EP2 and EP3 is pretty weird, isn't it? I'd honestly be tempted to chalk it up to Ryukishi not thinking of that part of the backstory until EP3, but I did notice that there is actually one line in EP2 that can be taken as suggesting that Rosa has met Beatrice before.

How long has this unknown witch been living on this island?! I used to live on this island. I lived on this island, passing the time in the mansion, in the rose garden. And even so, I never encountered a witch like that, ......never, ......supposedly................ "Mama......? Mama......? What's wrong......? Mama...?!" "......My head, .........hurts..."

This is doubly interesting since it suggests that Rosa has actually forgotten about her meeting with Beatrice, which would completely ruin KNM's motive if it was true.

I think that the dining room scene in EP3 does also loosely imply that Rosa has only just remembered about meeting Beatrice when everyone was discussing it, because she'd kind of shut the memory away because of the trauma. But I'm pretty sure that in EP7, Rosa remembers the event perfectly well without needing to be prompted. Perhaps she remembered before Will arrived, at the point where Kinzo was planning a funeral for "Beatrice"? That could possibly have triggered the memories in the same way that the conversation in EP3 did. Certainly curious that she doesn't seem to have remembered fully in EP2, though, despite meeting with and co-operating with someone called "Beatrice". (Or maybe she did remember, and the narration just doesn't tell us...?)
>> No. 110 edit
>>109
Let's say for the sake of argument she remembers at some point in ep2. There's two issues that crop up:

1) "Beatrice" has no way of knowing that Rosa knows this, unless Genji told her. I'm not sure whether Yasu ever indicated that Genji had explicitly said how her mother died, or that Rosa had confessed to being there when it happened. On the other hand, if she does know this, why not go after Rosa as an accomplice ASAP every single time? If you leave her be, there's a chance she'll remember and expose that Beatrice was a real person.

2) What is her plan? Is she going to betray "Beatrice," knowing she must be a human because the one she met was also a human? Is she participating out of some suppressed feeling of guilt? Why is she acting all suspicious of people if she ought to know exactly what's going on? If she's serving them up willingly to be murdered... why in the world?

I mean I ask the "why" question of everyone proposed as an accomplice in the stories, but at least in some cases you can imagine they thought it was all a fake game. Some of the stuff that happens in Turn... it just seems really unlikely for Rosa to believe it's all faked. And even then, why think Battler has anything to do with it? Sure, suspect the servants, that at least makes sense. Only explanation I have for that one is she adamantly refuses to suspect Maria... even though she happens to know Maria is enamored with Beatrice and has met Beatrice her own goddamn self with Maria present, and this happened specifically because Maria essentially helped arrange it.
>> No. 111 edit
File 136259067082.png - (775.32KB , 968x1041 , Erika_Smile.png )
111
>>110
As regards 1), to be fair, Beatrice isn't exactly the kind of person to try and eliminate every single risk. She was probably fine with the possibility that Rosa would expose that, considering her subconscious desire to be defeated.

For 2), I personally always assumed that Rosa was in it for the gold. The last scene of EP2 seems to heavily imply that to me, anyway. As I said earlier, I don't really think Rosa cares about anyone on the island except for Maria, so I can just about see her going along with the plan. And yeah, I think the whole thing with Rosa suspecting everyone and kicking them out was probably all according to Yasu's script. It led to the group splitting up, allowing more people to be murdered, and also encouraged Battler to try and analyse the scenario from a mystery perspective.
>> No. 112 edit
File 136320432922.jpg - (114.89KB , 448x653 , rosatrice confirmed.jpg )
112
>>105
Actually it's episode 4.
>> No. 113 edit
>>111
The whole "Beatrice wants to fail" thing never really made sense to me given how little effort is expended in making Battler actually care. I mean what was the point of Alliance again? By the time Battler has any opportunity to "stop" her, everyone's dead. Whoopdy-shit. If he shows up outside the house, is he gonna be like "Oh yeah BTW I remembered I promised to come back for you and all but you kinda just murdered at least George and probably everyone else, so fuck you bitch?" That was never actually going to happen.

Plus it's intensely hypocritical if it applies solely to fictional-Beatrice, because fictional-Beatrice can't actually fail unless she's explicitly written to, so there's no actual "risk" in anything she does (which is one of the more annoying aspects of the first four episodes' narratives, as understandable as it generally may be to fudge things for the sake of story). And I just plain refuse to accept a "RL Yasu" culprit who would be so monstrously immoral as to genuinely believe it was perfectly okay to murder the people she claims to love as long as there was a "risk" of failure.

That said, leaving Rosa be isn't a huge risk, since even if she remembers it's clear that this Beatrice is not that Beatrice, so it provides her with no particularly useful information about who is now Beatrice. And it doesn't guarantee that people won't still respond to her in the manner she intends, after all. Just because they know there was a Beatrice once, it didn't really alter the adults' behavior too much in ep3.
>> No. 114 edit
File 136320672295.png - (84.98KB , 291x478 , ka2_fumana66.png )
114
>>112
Oh thank you, that's the scene. Do you remember about why Kyrie + Rosa was such a good idea back then?
>>106
Oh good, I was expecting for someone to try that, and actually, I figured it would be you, if anyone.
First part: That argument is bad and you know it.
Second part: Why would the good Witch would only appear in Rokkenjima? Sadly, we're shown that Rosa cares more about herself, and we don't ever really see her playing with Maria.
>> No. 115 edit
File 136260168384.png - (153.62KB , 340x366 , Erika_EyesClosed.png )
115
>>113
Yeah, to be honest it's not really even a risk at all, since "Rosa saw Beatrice die, but now she's back again!?" can even be played up as more evidence of witchcraft if necessary.

Also, I wouldn't say that encouraging risk is meant as a way for Yasu to try and justify what she's doing...I get the impression from Ryukishi's interviews that it was more of a subconscious thing, so I doubt she ever really analysed it like that. She convinced herself she was doing the right thing, at least enough that she would actually go through with it - that doesn't mean that really deep down, she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong and have a deeply entrenched desire to be stopped that even she probably couldn't understand.

Well, that may sound like a contradiction to you, but people really are that contradictory, seriously. One can very certainly do terrible things for something that they don't really, in their heart of hearts, believe in. Just the faint possibility that it might work is enough for them, and they justify that with intellectual excuses that they convince themselves that they do in fact believe - that doesn't mean that they really, genuinely do, even if they think they do.

I have no idea if I managed to get that across properly or not, but that's the impression I get anyway. Yasu's deepest feelings are really hard to explain in logical language anyway, which is probably why Ryukishi intentionally didn't do so in EP7. Trying to do so often makes me think of Ryukishi's interview quote, "No matter how much more I pile up on my writing by explaining it, it won’t reach the people who don’t know the feeling". But yes, the core of the matter is that I personally don't find the two statements 'Yasu was determined enough to commit the murders' and 'Yasu was uncertain enough to want to be stopped' to be totally incompatible. People really are weird, aren't they?
>> No. 116 edit
>>115
The thing is, the author is trying to make me feel sympathy for the character. I can do so, but to do so, I have to believe that the character is in some sense moral and forgivable for their actions. I cannot sympathize with someone who is evil or just outright mentally ill. I can pity the latter, but pity is not sympathy and it isn't forgiveness.

The contradictory nature of someone's behavior is not, in and of itself, a sign of an unsympathetic mind. But there is a line that I cannot accept being crossed, and that line lies somewhere in the neighborhood of "deeply loves everyone in her life, even the people who wrong her, then murders all of them including the people who never did anything to even remotely deserve it."

This isn't really a problem to me if she didn't do it, or didn't intend to do it, or merely thought about it. But if she actually did do it, and for such a muddled reason, she deserves no sympathy or forgiveness. To then cover up her own crime and ensure not only that she would never be condemned (she's not even considered a likely suspect in the future!), but that her victims would be subject to an eternal cloud of suspicion? That's pure, unadulterated evil.

And I just can't buy the character presented to me is that kind of wicked person. So I'd rather believe in an accident or something mostly innocent but possibly easy to misinterpret getting out of hand. Maybe she was supposed to appear that way, but I really don't buy it.

Basically it's an awkward situation where I can't accept what you're proposing because I would see it as evil, and I can't see a person as evil. I think we both agree the character isn't evil... I just can't accept that such actions would be anything but.
>> No. 126 edit
>>114
Look in the other thread from this post and onwards: >>117
>> No. 127 edit
File 136322243523.png - (161.24KB , 434x480 , wdk_waraia1.png )
127
>>109
>>110
Well considering EP2 was written by Yasu, would Yasu know that Rosa had met Beatrice in 1967?

>>114
>we don't ever really see her playing with Maria.

We may not see Rosa, but we DO see Beatrice playing with Maria! Remember when Rosa found the gold in EP3? Then Rosa would also know about the time bomb, which would allow her to kill off everyone else and take the gold for herself! She wants the gold, but deep down she loves Maria, and this conflict represents the constant fighting between her split personalities, the good witch (Beatrice) and the bad witch (Rosa). Also, she has two more personalities named Shannon and Kanon, but that's another story.
>> No. 128 edit
File 136322300277.jpg - (596.11KB , 2429x1366 , ohgodno.jpg )
128
>>127
It's hard to say. EP2 kinda goes either way. It's sort of hinted when she sees her, which would suggest Yasu knows... on the other hand it could be the injection of a sort of meta-knowledge (something Beato knows that Yasu-as-author doesn't), as Rosa's actions don't appear to acknowledge it.

I'd think she didn't, but Genji could have said something when she asked about her mother after finding out who she was.
>> No. 129 edit
File 136323647068.png - (84.33KB , 291x478 , ka2_defa1.png )
129
>>127
Devil's advocate? Sure, why not.
From what we see in EP3, Rosa didn't know where the gold was until October 4th.
>> No. 130 edit
File 136323717412.png - (161.05KB , 434x480 , wdk_akuwaraia2.png )
130
>>129
Sure, Rosa didn't.

But Beatrice did.
>> No. 131 edit
File 136323763517.jpg - (7.88KB , 200x200 , 5demayo.jpg )
131
>>130
Circular logic? By the same extend I should be able to affirm Kinjo is a pedo then.
>Kinjo is a pedo because he likes to touch kids.
>Because he likes to touch little kids, Kinjo is a pedo.
>> No. 132 edit
File 136324901999.png - (380.07KB , 646x506 , to_the_island_of_the_witch.png )
132
>>116
Hm, I can see what you mean. But then, I'm not generally the type to view a person as evil. Hate the sin, not the sinner and all that. I definitely do think Yasu's actions are evil (as any mass murder is bound to be, by definition) and I still find her to be a fascinating and relatable character despite that. But I'm weird in that there's not really any line a person can cross that would bring them to the point where I wouldn't try to feel empathy for them.

Scenes like the one screenshotted here give me the impression that Yasu is someone who ended up making one big mistake that started her down a bad path, which ultimately led her to do something terrible. This causes me to feel more pity and sorrow for Yasu's actions than anger or hatred. I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to react that way, but I think Ryukishi at least hoped that someone would, even if it was only one person in a thousand.
>> No. 133 edit
>>132
I personally feel sorry for Yasu.
>> No. 134 edit
>>132
>>133

You can feel sorry for someone who has committed evil acts. You can sympathize with the circumstances that drove them to do what they did. You can feel empathy for their mental state. You don't have to hate them.

But it doesn't make what they did excusable (assuming for the moment that Yasu did do it, which I personally doubt). It doesn't mean they are not obligated to cease their evil act before they commit it, or own the responsibility and applicable penance if they go through with it. Those are things which are a moral right of justice, not of vengeance. Yasu-as-culprit doesn't deserve punishment and public outing because she needs to be made to feel bad (if she's dead this can't happen anyway); she deserves to be reviled in history as a murderer because she committed murder, and it is not acceptable to allow a person to commit murder and hide their identity from the world. That is an injustice.

If Yasu creates a catbox explicitly to hide her own involvement in the crime, then she has not only shot the finger to justice, she's also committed the arguably equal-or-worse crime of smearing the reputations of innocent victims. It's really no different from a rapist blaming his victim in an attempt to create reasonable doubt at trial. It somehow feels even more despicable than the original crime.

This is why the truth matters, and why everyone has a right to it even if they have no direct connection to the Incident and even if they would be irresponsible with it. Truth is, in itself, a liberating act of justice. It frees a dozen people who cannot defend themselves from a cloud of suspicion for a horrific crime, and (rightly) condemns the memory of a criminal.

You can still feel sad for them, but justice isn't about feelings. It's about treating behavior injurious to human society appropriately and as consistently as possible. Certainly her circumstances could be taken into account in assigning punishment... had she not taken the cowardly step of killing herself along with her many innocent victims. The truth is the only form of punishment that remains.

Of course I'd rather believe it's a tragic accident blown out of proportion by a mistake, which is an eminently forgivable crime as there was no intent behind it. But the point is that too should be known if it can be. If it can't... that sucks, but at least it wasn't anybody's specific fault. If someone did it deliberately for the sake of someone else's reputation, that's bad and the truth should come out but at least their action was driven by a non-evil impulse, however evil the result. But if somebody buried the truth on purpose to hide their own involvement, they're evil, full stop.
>> No. 135 edit
File 136260168384.png - (153.62KB , 340x366 , erika9.png )
135
>>134
That seems like an utterly pointless form of justice to me. There can be no punishment for someone who is no longer in this world. To insist that their name be reviled and condemned after their death feels like a pathetic act of petty spite that doesn't in any way put right what they did and certainly doesn't "liberate" anyone or anything. Justice isn't about feelings? Nonsense; this kind of justice you're speaking of can only possibly be motivated by emotional reasons since it has absolutely no material benefit whatsoever.

Regardless, I agree with you that Yasu's actions are inexcusable and that she shouldn't have committed them. However, since, to use Lion's words, she is a "different possible me" I cannot feel any resentment toward her and I cannot fathom this need to try to somehow 'put right' the injustice of her acts. That injustice can be neither prevented (given that it has happened) nor punished (given that she is dead) nor even judged (given that none of us have ever been in her situation and cannot possibly say for certain that we wouldn't have done the same thing if we had been).

You say that we don't have to hate her but then you say that she deserves to be reviled? How is that consistent? How can you even say what a person 'deserves'? How can anyone say that objectively? How can you have such faith in these concepts of justice and the inherent rightness of truth, that are of purely human origin and can have no objective basis? Any value they may have can only possibly be derived from emotion rather than logic, and your emotions are not inherently superior to anyone else's. They may be right to you, but that doesn't mean someone else is objectively wrong because they feel differently.

If you continue to insist that 'justice isn't about feelings' then you are giving your own truth an authority that it does not warrant. You are free to still believe that your concept of justice is right, but you have to accept that it is based on feelings because it cannot possibly have any other foundation. I don't claim any objective truth for the way I look at things either, but I cannot change the way I feel and don't feel any desire to either. So I won't say that your morality is wrong, but I also can't accept that it can be by any means inherently "right" either, given that the very notion of "rightness" is a subjective, emotional one. And furthermore it is not a morality that can ever feel "right" for me personally, because I refuse to suppress my own feelings so that I can decide what to believe based on some predefined notion of rightness that does not hold true in my own heart.

It also occurs to me that the way that Yasu's act should be treated after her death is absolutely nothing to do with whether she is a sympathetic character or not, which is what I was talking about in the post you're responding to, but I already hopelessly derailed the original topic by starting this discussion in the first place so I suppose there's no harm in derailing it further~
>> No. 136 edit
>>135
It's not spite. It's equity. If anyone is responsible, then they must take the blame. Because to do otherwise is unfair to the other victims, who did nothing to merit being speculated as murderers for the rest of time. That's common-sense fairness.

The point of "punishment" is not always to harm or deter the responsible party. That is, as you say, it's impossible to "punish" Yasu (unless she survived). However, that is not always the purpose of things. The goal is to communicate to society what acts are not permissible, who committed those acts, and what consequences derive from doing so. If police stopped investigating every time they thought a culprit was dead and never published their name or a theory of what they did, it would communicate the absurd notion that society only cares about crime when it's seeking retribution against a living person responsible for it. What society actually seeks is to be mended by addressing the crime; this is why the person who complains in a criminal trial is the state, not the victim. Certainly the victims of Rokkenjima were victims of the crime, but society itself is also a victim and has both a need and a desire to see the crime understood and properly condemned, if possible. If it's not possible due to the machinations of the culprit, the crime still exists (and is all the worse for it), we just can't do much about it as a society. That makes the crime particularly insidious, as it leaves an open wound that we can't collectively heal.

Of course this does not apply if no one was responsible.

I'm not going to fall into a trap of "you can't establish your beliefs objectively." Ethically, it is possible to derive a system of beliefs which is consistent and desirable by means of observation, and one of the best ways to look at that is from a system of fairness. Whether this system is a priori objective or whether it's scientifically verifiable is not relevant. An equivalent system of ethics is viable (although ultimately problematic if the systems disagree) if it can be established and defended, so I'm not dismissing your point out of hand, but to say that any two ethical systems are equivalent is incorrect. I don't believe this because it "feels right," I believe it because it tracks with my observations of how people and societies operate as well as because it anticipates my desires from these observations as to how society ought to operate (this is the part that "feels right" to me, but not the foundation unto itself).
>> No. 137 edit
File 136380333095.png - (865.62KB , 968x1041 , Erika_ThoughtfulPose.png )
137
>>136
That all seems rather abstract. What actual damage is this so-called "open wound" causing? Also, you say that this wound would not exist if no one was responsible? How can that be? Regardless of what caused the Rokkenjima Incident, its impact on society would be exactly the same regardless as long as nobody knew what happened.

Whether Yasu killed everyone or the bomb went off by accident, it wouldn't change how any person would feel about the event and it wouldn't change the reaction of society. So how can it possibly make any difference what really happened? A metaphysical wound that has no bearing on anything and exerts absolutely no influence on the world through its existence surely cannot be of any consequence.

And yes, I believe that justice should have some kind of purpose, otherwise it is futile. Of course it's absurd to say that society only cares about crime if they can exact retribution for it; there are much better reasons for wanting to see a criminal behind bars, primarily so that they can't hurt anyone else and hopefully so that there can be at least some attempt at rehabilitation. Not to mention acting as a deterrent, though that can't be allowed to become its primary purpose since it's far better for a person to choose not to commit a crime because they know it's wrong rather than because they fear some kind of punishment for it.

There are plenty of other good reasons to try to find the truth behind a crime, but I don't see how any of them can apply to the Rokkenjima Incident. What you're saying seems to essentially come down to a belief that it's inherently bad for society not to know the truth, but you don't seem to be able to actually pinpoint any concrete negative effect that not knowing the truth might have. You seem to think that people have an intrinsic right to know everything, even things that are of absolutely no relevance to them beyond idle curiosity. I certainly don't believe that. There are plenty of things that people don't need to know. Maybe the annoyance of not knowing is something that bothers them, but who can say that the truth would be any more satisfying to them? Even if everyone knew who the culprit was, they still wouldn't fully understand anyway, so they would only have a partial truth. The truth can only be a means to an end; it can't be allowed to become an end in and of itself. What's the point in giving people a truth that doesn't mean anything to them? Where does this entitlement come from, that makes people think that they have some right to know a truth that's nothing to do with them?
>> No. 138 edit
>>137
I'm not trying to defend Renall's argument, but about this wound, well, he could be talking about the family's reputation, including Eva and Ange.
>> No. 139 edit
File 136404342151.png - (798.42KB , 968x1041 , Erika_Smile2.png )
139
>>138
Well, fair enough, but that would still apply in exactly the same way whether it was an accident or a crime. But I guess his point is that if it was an accident, then that couldn't be helped, but if it's done intentionally then it's an evil act. I never really disagreed with that in the first place though.

I guess what it comes down to is that if the truth was found, then people wouldn't be wrongly suspected any more? I suppose I can't argue with that. I'm not really sure how we got on to this topic anyway, but...Well, I'm not sure that in itself validates the concept that the truth should always be sought. If anything the root of the problem is that people are trying to figure out the truth, and in doing so they're speculating about who the culprit is which is dishonoring pretty much everyone. It's true that revealing the truth would make this speculation stop, but it would be better if people could just mind their own business and not hurt other people with their unprovable speculations in the first place. If people could accept that they couldn't know the truth then people wouldn't be hurt by their malicious theories about it.

Actually, that's basically what Renall's Redaction is all about, isn't it? Interesting how we somehow came to that. I forget what my point was, but it's interesting. Yeah, I think I lost my enthusiasm for this discussion at some point. Don't really understand what leads me to get worked up about these things at random. I'm weird okay~
>> No. 140 edit
File 136406356220.png - (180.95KB , 496x480 , fk_even_in_your_games_im_still_beatrice.png )
140
>>139
Like I said, I wasn't defending Renall's argument, I do believe some things shouldn't be know. However, this thing you said...
>but it would be better if people could just mind their own business and not hurt other people with their unprovable speculations in the first place.
Right, it might be better if they would not, but being honest, speculating is a fun thing to do. That's exactly what made a lot of us read Umineko (besides the likeable characters). Basically, what I'm saying is that the human is curious by nature, so you can't really blame the people in Ange's world to want to know what really happened during those two days. It is truly only, and only the culprits' fault.
>> No. 141 edit
File 136411828693.png - (865.22KB , 968x1041 , Erika_DisinterestedPose.png )
141
>>140
There is a pretty obvious difference between making theories about a murder mystery series and doing the same with an actual crime. Theories about Gohda killing everyone with his incompetence may be a lot of fun here, but it's extremely irresponsible if you're actually making a mockery of a dead person (presumably with a surviving family who would be quite rightfully offended by it). Maybe the speculation can't be helped, but I'd hardly say that the people who are speculating "can't be blamed" for it. Those girls at Ange's school tormenting her with the Rudolf/Kyrie culprit theory aren't just being curious; they're being actively malicious.

It depends on how you look at it, I suppose; to me it would seem that the root of the problem lies with the fact that people feel like they have a need to know things that they really don't, rather than with the fact that the truth hasn't been revealed. It would be much better to try and stop the goats' speculation by making them realise that it's wrong, rather than by insisting that we find out the truth about everything so that people have no need to speculate. I think that's probably what Ryukishi was going for with the EP8 resolution, even if it was kind of weak in how it was executed (would Ikuko setting up for the reveal of the diary and then ending up refusing really make the Witch Hunters give up just like that?).

And yes, obviously all the consequences of the crime are the fault of the culprit to some degree. At some point we moved from that topic to talking about whether it's right that the truth should never be revealed. So we basically ended up talking about exactly what Renall told us to set aside in the opening post. Oops.
>> No. 166 edit
File 136639572088.jpg - (127.19KB , 850x607 , sample-d496120813cc610c9ddf1e56ce53ee0b.jpg )
166
October 5th,1986
Eva solves the epitaph and finds the gold. OH WOW. What's this switch on the clock? Let's check. Click-clack-click for a while. Oh it is nothing. Now, which was its initial position. Oh who cares. Oh there's a door here, let's see where it goes, oh a long hallway, let's walk it until the end, oh here I am in a strange mansion in the forest. Maybe I should return, what time is it again? 0:00?
In the meanwhile Battler reminds about his promise to shannon 6 years before and asks her if she still loves him. In no time shannon says "fuck you george you're fat!"
and they go to a secret place to enjoy some time alone. This secret place is the submarine hangar. So, while they are there and eva fucked off the bomb's switch and she's enjoying a trip to the Kuwadorian, the bomb activates and everyone dies. Battler and Shannon try to return to the mansion but obviously the way is obstructed now by rocks and shit, so they take the motorboat.
Eva cries herself to sleep until the police finds her.
The motorboat malfunctions and Battler sinks down with Shannon, but he manages to get to the shore.

All of this is based on a few, simple, truths

Eva comes back from Rokkenjima
Battler comes back from Rokkenjima
Eva never said shit about someone killing George. If someone killed his precious George she would surely say her/his name no matter what


Just to add one, final, thing: Kinzo Ushiromiya is alive. We only know that he's dead at the beginning of every GAME, but in reality he faked his dead before Beatrice just to add some scenic effect, then he tricked Krauss in believing so and finally he managed to escape from Rokkenjima, finally free from the burden of Beatrice. Her beloved witch revived, his life was accomplished. Time to start a new life somewhere else. Obviously he will be the protagonist of When They Cry 5. Remember these words.
>> No. 167 edit
File 136639719215.jpg - (128.95KB , 540x304 , 1299372998780.jpg )
167
>>166
>> No. 196 edit
>>78
According to the red truth,
Ushiromiya Eva's diary, the Book of the Single Truth, has written within it the truth of Rokkenjima during October 4th and 5th, 1986.
So there's no possibility to interpret this such a way. The definition of murderer is 'someone who murders', it actually never says that they have to murder someone in the catbox (i.e. who appears in the story). For example, George can commit the crime before the Rokkenjima events, outside the island, and, therefore, he becomes a 'murderer', even without the killing someone in the island. So, according to the Bern's definition of violet declaration, it would be possible for him to lie.
Moreover, Lambda states that the catbox cannot exist if Beatrice's 'condition of existence' is violated, despite the fact that Erika exists on the EP5-6 gameboards.
So, the truth
Even if you do join us- There are 17 people.
simply erases the existence of Erika, as violating the 'chessboard rule'.
>> No. 197 edit
>>196
I believe that you mislinked the post you were trying to respond to.
>> No. 217 edit
I would really like to believe that it was anyone except Yasu at this point. Yasu was never in my pool of possible culprits, nor in my pool of impossible culprits when I started the game, as we had absolutely no way of determining this "character's" existence until far later into the game. Nevertheless, I suppose Ryukishi's attitude toward his culprit might be called trollish; His response to an accusation that he violated specific commandments might be to say, "Well, Yasu was actually here all along, in the forms of Beatrice, Shannon and Kanon! Clearly, nothing has been violated," and the writing on the wall is essentially stone-carved with the revelation of Our Confession regardless. Thus, any theory germane to what is written in that document likely satisfies what you are asking for, which is the answer to what really happened, despite that the existence of Yasu grossly violates not only Knox's 1st, 5th, and 10th respectively, but especially Van Dine's 5th, which reads:
"The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker."

We were invited to solve the mystery using a human culprit and solutions other than magic to the specific riddles. Instead, we are essentially told that the culprit was a witch all along, and that she used human tricks. Hilarious, really. Not.

Now, with the acknowledgement that "Yasu is what actually happened" out of the way, what I prefer to believe happened is that members of Eva's family were behind the murders. The biggest piece of evidence for this is the "Book of the Single Truth" itself. For starters, why the hell is it a complete book? Eva never would have had the time to fill an entire journal in three days whilst arguing with the relatives on Rokkenjima. As such, it is likely that the journal contains not only the events of "What happened on Rokkenjima," but also the details of how the murder was intended to be carried out. Hideyoshi, an outsider to the family, and a character whom we have little knowledge about aside the fact that he is in need of money, would most likely be the one to solicit Eva's assistance, using his knowledge of her resentment to his advantage. Loyal to her loving husband, and enthralled by her inner child's idea of getting revenge, she agrees. George would likely be left out of the crimes altogether, or alternatively, perhaps he turned on his parents upon deducing that they intended to kill Shannon, a witness to the crime, resulting in the eventual death of Hideyoshi, and George's accidental death in the explosion. Because Eva finds the gold on her own in the story, and we are led to believe she is nothing if not a cunning, intelligent woman, it is likely that the journal also contains her attempts at solving the epitaph, her account of solving it (which occurs prior to the events of the first game,) and her knowledge of how the mechanism on the clock works. I wouldn't even be surprised if all the gold had been moved prior to the three days encompassing the Rokkenjima Explosion Incident, and the killings were either a ruse to distract people from attempting to find the gold, which was no longer present, or else a response to a joint effort by the siblings to attempt solving it (a Plan B of sorts, also premeditated in the journal.)

TL;DR - No fun explanation: It's Yasu.
Fun explanation: Eva-Hideyoshi Culprit Theory, with a dash of George for flavor. Eva's book contains a pre-written mediation of the murders, as well as the accounts of what actually happened.

Last edited at 14/09/16(Tue)21:41:45
>> No. 224 edit
Ange was mentioned in the first episode, before all of the red truth, blue truth, and so forth. It is possible she snuck onto the island, discovered the gold and cash, and killed others after arming the bombs, escaping on a boat from the second port on the island.
>> No. 225 edit
>>217
You should note that Dine was never confirmed for any fragment, Will only used it on other mysteries, and even then it was already 'solved' before they confessed.

>>224
That old theory is basically the same as outsider x theory right? But even then, looking at EP1 only, she would have needed the servants at the very least to aid her, for a girl that size would be physically impossible to create the first twilight without making needlessly complex devices. If that's the case then practically anybody could have done it. Not to mention she would have had an alibi during the time of the incident.
>> No. 226 edit
>>225
She could have solved the riddle and gained the assistance of a servant to make the first twilight, and continued on to the other twilights herself. It would also explain why that code was in blood on the door. She can't use it, and it would be hard for anyone to forget a number written in blood.
>> No. 227 edit
>>226
Isn't that's what I just said? Well regardless, she still doesn't fit into the number of people on the island right? Still got an alibi and still outsider x.

Also, other people would have no need for the code either, such as anyone who is prepared to die. It really doesn't exclusively mean anything that points towards Ange.
>> No. 228 edit
>>227
It is possible that the code was meant to be given to a single survivor of the incident, other than Ange, who, as a child, could not use the number. Also, her entire alibi rests on the words of two people. It's not unthinkable she snuck around and came with them, faking her cold so she had an "alibi".
>> No. 229 edit
>>228
Well sure, but the other reasons still stand too.

There is nothing to say that her alibi isn't false, that type of theory doesn't hold up; it is just like the false method of solving the game which was implanted on us in episode 3. e.g. Making a theory that fits a loophole rather than makes more sense. Devil's proof and all that.
You seem to be having more fun than theory with this anyway. Frankly a few red truths pretty much deny an Ange theory to begin with, so you'd have to get over those first.

Last edited at 15/01/04(Sun)09:46:07
>> No. 231 edit
>>229
The red truth was introduced from EP2 and onwards. Red isn't required to solve EP1, which is where Ange could be the culprit.
>> No. 232 edit
>>231
"The theory works if you ignore 90% of the story"
Pretty hard to buy.
Ep1 is generally pretty clear cut anyway considering all the faked deaths.

Lets lay down the problems.
>Ange has an alibi, which you seem to be disregarding for no reason.
>You only say to use EP1, yet you use parts of EP3 and other episodes for supporting evidence and conclusion making.
>You have yet to state a motive.

I know you like this theory aura but you're just cutting corners.
>> No. 233 edit
test
>> No. 250 edit
sdfgsfdg
>> No. 295 edit
>>130
Sento is not the detective and a possible culprit Battlers real name is Sento, the first chekhovs gun in ep1.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason