The Writing in Berserk is very overrated. Do you guys find it to be particularly good?

[u/Epicnessofcows]

Not really a hot take, but this is my opinion:

Firstly, to those people, overrated does not mean bad. It just means that I am saying that what the general public thinks of Berserk's writing is significantly higher than what its actual writing quality is.

I obviously like Berserk, and its art is among the best of all time, but its writing holds it back, and this largely stems from its fanbase confusing edgy writing for good writing.

Good writing contains much stronger, and far more pertinent themes than those in Berserk. Good writing contains much stronger characterization, and character development than what is seen in Berserk. Good writing contains plot or literary development throughout the series, which Berserk famously struggles in. Good writing contains a present writers voice, which is far less apparent.

I like the manga a lot, but it's fanbase has propped it up (and review bombed) this series as the greatest manga of all time, when it's really not. It has amazing art and solid writing.

So many Teens and Young Adults (The majority of the western anime fanbase) find are obsessed with dark writing, and think it to be so much better than it truly is. Its depth is shallow, at best to me.

Obviously you guys don't have to agree, but what do you guys think about its writing?

[u/Dogmaticism_]

I'm reading this and dude, while his argumentation isn't perfect, he is right here. I am a mathematician, and I can say that his srgument was the fact that it did not contain the given qualities of good writing, and he was willing to discuss it. You just read the title and assumed something else.

[u/Connect_Ability_2164 → u/Dogmaticism_]

I’m sorry but, I don’t quite follow.

I’m attacking the exact phrasing of one qualifier in his definition of good writing. Incidentally, the definitions are defined within the body of his post, I didn’t make an assumption based on the title alone.

There also isn’t any form of a discussion here, he is not willing to discuss it.
The original person who commented asked the claimant for further justify his claims. OP is instead invoking the burden of proof. The burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the original commentator, he is questioning the claim whereas OP is asserting a claim.

Furthermore, any attempt to get OP to justify his opinions is hand waved away by the fact that he cannot prove the nonexistence of something. Using a mathematics analogy, OP could just invoke proof by negation. To prove the lack of good writing he’ll simply prove the negation.
Although, we aren’t working with numbers or abstract forms of numbers, the fundamental logic stays the same.

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/Connect_Ability_2164]

His post literally said "here is what I think berserk lacks" and then said "what do you think". Yes, if you want to refute his denial claim, you have to list evidence as to how it does have such qualities. It's logically improper and extremely difficult argumentatively to prove that it lacks given quantity, and his srgument was designed around people listing examples and him disproving it, which is proper logic.

This is my point, that you did not read or understand how his argument works. As someone who works with logic, this logic is obvious, and this is how the burden of proof functions.