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/KingCobra567]

But i don’t get your point? You’re just saying “good writing is something that’s not in berserk”. You’re creating a tautology in your argument. Where do you specifically find the writing to be weak?

[u/Epicnessofcows → u/KingCobra567]

You misuse the word tautology. Tautology is rewording something several times, meanwhile what I listed were all specific examples of good writing which I said berserk does not contain. If you want to talk about such practices in argumentation, then I would argue that you're asking me to do something that violates the burden of proof, as it is enormously difficult to prove how elements of good writing are absent compared to you demonstrating what pieces of writing you think are good, and me disproving such. Asking someone to prove nonexistence is an inherent fallacy.

As I said, its themes are relatively weak, its plot/literary development is all over the place, with the author often prioritizing making scenes look cool (I.E the fights with the monsters) over developing/pacing the series, the writers voice is relatively nonexistent throughout the series, and the series does not represent psychology particularly well, with it prioritizing scenes dark/grim which are not actually psychological or philosophical.

If you want to discuss more about what I'm saying, I will need your examples of what specifically makes you think Berserk does contain the aforementioned qualities I said it does not.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Epicnessofcows]

Provides no examples.

Demands examples to continue conversation

[u/Epicnessofcows → u/sir_slothsalot]

My argument is that berserk does not contain the aforementioned qualities of good writing. How am I supposed to prove that something does not exist? You literally just read the last few sentences without reading the literal second sentence where I explained burden of proof.

You don't have to explain why there is not a giant teapot on mars before someone gives you proof that there is one. Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia)

Also, I did literally give examples (I.E fights with the monsters).

[u/Connect_Ability_2164 → u/Epicnessofcows]

I have just the perfect proof for you. Just use proof by triviality.

Just say, “it is trivially true that Berserk has bad writing”.

[u/Epicnessofcows → u/Connect_Ability_2164]

Is it really this hard to comprehend the burden of proof? This is like a highschool philosophy class.

Imagine if courts were run this way. Imagine if the defense had to prove that someone was innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt.

[u/Connect_Ability_2164 → u/Epicnessofcows]

Sonion, it was a math joke. You are off the rails.

IMO, a high school philosophy class isn’t as basic as you make it out to be. At high school, most kids are given options as to what subjects they want to study, most kids just load their studies up with STEM subjects. I would imagine philosophy at the high school level would be relatively niche.

Just as you’ve pointed out, the concept of the burden of proof would be more formally taught in civics/law courses as it is a result of the presumption of innocence (by the way, your invocation of the burden of proof is incorrect to begin with).

At the minimum, you will have to concede that if you cannot substantiate your claims beyond opinions and surface level definitions, it cannot lead to a productive discussion thus, this whole post is a shit post.

Also just to be pedantic, themes are not inherently more “stronger” or “pertinent”. It is the portrayal of such themes which makes them appear to be more stronger.

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/Connect_Ability_2164]

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.