Talk: Mariko Anzai

Is Mariko Anzai Aya's mother?

Okay, not be a jerk or whatever, but I find that this article is not being accurate about Mariko's history. I do own the novel and have read it and there are many, many things that contradict the idea that Mariko Anzai and Mariko Brea are the same person.

1. The novel references the Mitochondrial Eve Theory:

This is a HUGE plot hole due to the fact that the Mitochondrial Eve Theory was not made until 1987. There is NO WAY this book could have taken place before Mariko or even during the time when Mariko Brea died.

2. Polymerase Chain REaction:

A scientific technique used in molecular biology. Again, was not developed until 1983.

3. Needle biopsy

Used for the first time in 1981 (at least in the US)

4.Northern blot

First used in 1977, the year of Mariko Brea's death

5. Okt-3

An immunosuppresant first approved in 1983

6. Toshiaki was seen using slides date "1991"

Again, another story reference that wouldn't match up with a timeline in which Mariko Anzai is Aya's mother

Now, the evidence I have compiled brings me to one conclusion: Mariko Brea was NOT formerly Mariko Anzai. There are too many very specific medical terms and theories used and spoken that contradict a timeline in which this could happen. The novel even has a glossary and bibliography explaining the terms. One editor mentioned that there is an interview with Takashi Tokita who directed and wrote the first game as well as being the co-creator alongside Hironobu Sakaguchi. And, frankly, I NEED to see it. I'm not trying to be mean, I just need confirmation. If he did say that, then there are some REALLY big contradictions and plot holes that an idea like that would bring. So either Tokita got sloppy and didn't study the book closely enough, or Aya's mother being name Mariko is merely a fanservice reference -- Aiddon

Well the Director did state it somewhere. (I'll have a look to see if I can find it) as he was talking about how he gor permission from Hidaki Seena to use the novels name, plot and also the character of Mariko to connect with Aya. And also the novel was not actually given a date, stated by the author himself its up to the imagination of the reader to interpret the date. And btw Mariko and Maya died in 1978, not 1977 (this was a continuity error in the 3rd birthday) and wearn't the slides a prediction thing about evolution of cells (I'm re-reading the book so I'll confirm later)? Cause I'm sure the novel did NOT take place in the 1990's.

Also to add onto this arguement is that it does make sense.

Mitochondria is inherited by the mother. Because Eve's cells were inserted into Mariko to create the ultimate being, Mariko will now have the advanced mitochondria but this will not come to posess her due to it not being hers but will instead be passed onto her child. And for the mitochondria to be strong, the child will have to be female (as mitochondria seems to be weaker in males for some reason) and the Parasite Eve novel takes place in JAPAN not the US, so many procedures took place there before the US as well. Also needle Biopsy was never stated in the novel to my knowledge. And also to add on it does NOT matter WHEN a book was written, it could take place at any time the author wishes so your arguement about the date it was created is pointless to a certain degree and the mitochondrial Eve theory was only mentioned in the game. Toshiaki named the cells "EVE" due to it being Kiyomi's "new birth/awakening" and has nothing to do with the theory whatsoever. The name Mitochondria Eve is mentioned but thats what Asakura names her due to her controlling and born from mitochondria.

As I said, I'm re-reading the book now. But there will always be continuity errors and you can't expect people making a game from a novel too be a 100% precise on different facts. Also to add there might be one or two translation errors, so i'll have a look into that later. And also there is something called Author logic error, the author may write something but the actual object was not made or was around where the book is dated, this could be due to the author knowing the object and mis-thinking about the time it was first presented.

All together this is a good arguement and I would like other people to voice their suggestions on this. -- Yunagal95

Again, sorry, I'm not buying it, and you have a lot of flaws. In the epilogue Asakura reads an article in the magazine Nature and then remembers research done in 1991 discovering that mitochondrial DNA CAN be passed from the father.

RT-PCR is mentioned on page 112; PCR had not been developed until 1983. There were also slides Toshiaki uses dated 1991.

On page 216, Eve says "I can even remember quite clearly the woman you call 'Mitochondrial Eve.'" She even explains the theory in minute detail. Again, this theory was not put forth until 1987.

And you are wrong about the death of Aya's mother and sister. In the first game Aya found the hospital record about her mother's "December 23, 1977 after cardiac arrest".

So again, I hate to say it, but there's WAY too much evidence that contradicts the theory that Anzai COULD be Aya's mother. There's no way this book could have taken place any earlier than the early nineties in which Aya's mother was already dead. The name was probably just fanservice on Tokita and Sakaguchi's part -- Aiddon

Just pointing out something here about what you said about Sachiko reading an article, you got that bit wrong.

Page 294 (heres the quote):

"But then she remembered the thoery presented in this article; It had always been excepted that mitochondrial DNA was passed through maternal heiredy. Though male mitochondria entered an egg via sperm which carried them, they did not multiply afterwards" this means that none of the male mitochondria is strong enough to be truly present in a child when they are born. So there goes that point. Also to add the epilogue takes place a few years after what happened (the beginning of the book Asakura just started studying and in the epilogue she's in her last year of her 6 year course) and the 1991 bit is mentioned on this page too so you are possibly right there, unless like you said the director may have overlooked that bit.

On Page 216:

Yup the quote is there but then again this can either prove your point or it could be another logic error from the author as the theory was highley talked about through the 1980's when it came to universities.

And about the whole 1977 thing, Aya states Maya and her mother died when she was 5 and her PE files also state that they died when she turned 5. This would make the year of their death 1978. So that was probably a translation error in the english release (also note the Aerith-Aeris business that happened round about the same time and the possible error about Melissa Pearce recieving the kidney) so translation error could come into it.

so lets say Mariko is NOT Mariko Brea. Than how come Maya had that strong mitochondria? Because it obviously came from Mariko Brea, but wouldn't the mitochondria take over Mariko Brea already? And you have to admit it would make MORE sense if Mariko Anzai was Mariko Brea. Also to add on Maeda said that the incident happened when he was a child (correct me if I'm wrong on the line) so wouldn't that be about 30-21 years before the first game?

I am now looking at both sides of the arguement as 1991 was mentioned in the book (in the epilogue at least) but for some reason you seem to be narrow minded and only looking at one point without considering the other side of the arguement that Mariko could actually be Mariko Brea. -- Yunagal95 21:19, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off the death date thing. Aya was born November 20 1972; it's seen clear as day in Parasite Eve 2 on a computer screen. December 23, 1977 would allow her to be five years old at the time. So that fits nicely together; no contradictions, no trouble.

And yes, you're wrong about Maeda saying it happened when he was a boy. In the first game, Maeda merely says "A similar incident happened in Japan several years ago". That's it, he never gives any indication that the incident happened decades ago. In fact, he even says used Toshiaki's lab to study his findings. This could admittedly also be a translation goof.

And again, with the Mitochondrial Eve theory. The earliest the theory COULD have been brought forth was 1980 when WM Brown wrote an article on mitochondrial DNA. Again, doesn't correlate with the theory of Mariko Anzai and Mariko Brea being the same. The term wasn't even used until the January 1, 1987 issue of Nature (the very same magazine that Toshiaki mentions in the book) which led to the discussion about the theory of Mitochondrial Eve. And the original Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent immediate ancestor for ALL humans. My guess is that it's possible that

-sigh- I'm not being narrowminded. I'm REALLY not. I'm sorry, but that comment was out of line. I am looking at the other side of the argument, I am being fair, but from what I see there's more evidence AGAINST the Anzai=Mariko Brea argument then there is FOR it. -- Aiddon

I'm sorry if that seemed "out of line" but that was the way you were acting at that time and also about the mitochondrial theory was first presented in 1978 at a talk or something but wasn't properly written until 1980, so its impossible for much talk to be from earler years than that. So you are indeed right there.

And I got a bit confused about the date thing, sorry about that its because I was poking around the 3rd birthday files and that game up about 100 times so I got confused (silly me)

And I would indeed like to add that you havent really been making any edits on this wiki before starting this "arguement" that came across as you imposing on ground, also to add i'm a teenage hormonal woman so it was bad timing just then. But I will apologise if I came across rude towards you. I'd like to say end this arguement, I will change the article though and state that it could be a possiblity that Mariko Anzai is Mariko Brea and leave it at that as the edit you made may upset a LOT of fans who actually believe that Mariko Anzai is Aya's mother, as their are points on both sides and leave it as that until we have further proof or confirmation on either side. Does that sound alright? -- Yunagal95 22:27, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can state that MAYBE it's possible in a speculation section on the page, that's fine, but remember that it's only a THEORY. I was just trying to keep things truthful as most of the theory is speculative, at least from my point of view. -- Aiddon

Sheesh, what a wall of text. Just saying, if you're going to have massive debate, sign your posts and indent next time. AlexShepherd 05:30, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

You could just presume that the video games take place in a slightly different continuity from the novel where the basic events of the novel happened but at an earlier date. So Mariko Brea would be the equivalent of the novel's Mariko Anzai. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 02:49, December 6, 2012 (UTC)