charkie wrote:
Also reading Umineko (up to the last episode of Questions Arc) and I hate it. There's so much of this interminable, repetitious text where characters rephrase the same thing over and over, pretentious meta commentary, meaningless subplots that interject with the actually interesting central mystery with increasing regularity to the point that by the fourth episode you get like ten minutes worth of actual story happening for every few hours of completely tangential scenes that you are led to believe are not real anyway. I'm going to at least finish this one but I'm never taking the internet's advice again.
I'm impressed that you read to the fourth arc if you didn't like it that much. That's a a lot of reading. As someone who loved Umineko, I'll be honest and don't think you'll find the rest that interesting if you haven't liked it so far. What you refer to as the subplot is really an integral part of the main plot that's interwoven with the central mystery both narratively and thematically. Episodes 5 & 6 by far have the most meta elements in the entire series and to me include some of its high points.
As a whole the structure of Umineko reminds me of the Charlie Kaufman film Adaptation, in that they're both about writing, and feel like explorations of an author's trials and tribulations. And they both use another story, in Umineko's case Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, subverting conventions as a means to explore the mind of a writer. Both are absolutely self indulgent at times, showing more style than substance and leaving a reader confused as to what to make of its plot threads. It's its biggest flaw.
If you really just want to get the answers to the 'central mystery' then you could skip to Episode 7. This would get you the who, why and how you likely seek. But while satisfying in its own way, reading it in this manner would miss the point Umineko tries to make.