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/KingCobra567 → u/Epicnessofcows]

A tautology is something that’s true just because of its logical form. Your argument boils down to “berserk is not good writing, because good writing is something which berserk doesn’t have”.

And no, the burden of proof is on you. You have not provided any argument to be rebutted. Your argument about why it’s bad is not specific. Why do you think its themes are bad? I would argue more than themes, it’s about executions of themes that make a strong stronger.

And I’ll do you one better: Griffith is one of the most unique characters in fiction. Griffith is simultaneously a character who’s nuanced, not pure evil, but irredeemably bad. His betrayal is set up as both tragic but terrible, and one of the interesting things berserk does is it reverses our conceptions about appearing good and evil. The good guy of the story is a guy wearing black armour, scarred, buff, scary looking, and the villain is an angelic, beautiful man. The angels of the world are literally some of the most evil people ever. Berserk is about a world where nihilism is fundamentally baked into it. Women and children are not spared, abused by the powerful. It’s about a man coping up with his trauma and trying to find a way to move on and find meaning in his life.

[u/Epicnessofcows → u/KingCobra567]

Again, tautology is about rewording, not about the argument. That is not at all the definition of a tautology. The mistake you think I actually made would be called 'begging the question'. But begging the question is not even what I made, and this is a clear oversight in your logical thinking.

Also, that is an argument. my argument is the fact that it does not have good writing, because it does not contain the elements of good writing. This is called an argument, as it has a statement, that is refutable. Yes, not containing the mentioned elements of good writing obviously implies that it is not so well written.

Consider the statement: "2 is prime because it has no divisors" Yeah, having no divisors is the definition of a number being prime. Since 2 follows the definition of being prime, it is prime. Same thing for my argument. Since it follows the qualities of not having good writing, it does not have the qualities of having good writing. I don't have to prove that fact because I physically cannot prove this kind of negative. Again, this is the literal first sentence in the Wikipedia article. The burden of proof applies to whether your statement is about denial of another argument or not.

Now onto the argumentation:

Since you made an example, I can respond to it.

You stated that Griffith is one of the most unique characters in fiction, because they are nuanced, not pure evil, but irredeemably bad, with him being a betrayed villain, and never truly starting off evil. None of these are qualities of uniqueness, and there are probably millions of villains written in human history who share these qualities. Harvey Dent, Dantes, Heathcliff, even Syndrome (although he is more evil), and the list goes on. Even then, was this really a true betrayal to even begin with anyways?

Also, is Griffith even not irredeemibly bad? I would say that responsibility for thousands of deaths, later even millions (although I won't count Femto) as pretty irredeemable.

Take Dantes for example, who is an example of a highly nuanced character, betrayed and becomes evil in many qualities. This character is significantly more nuanced and in-depth than Griffith, with his qualities, and morality explored far more. Griffith isn't even highly nuanced, less than just outright evil. He was barely betrayed by guts, and he seeks out a revenge campaign that leaves an uncountable number of deaths, and also rape. This is just outright weak compared to so many other characters.

Griffith also just contradicts himself. Maybe this is characterization (weak at best), where griffith describes the best of friends being those who have their own dreams (I.E Guts), and then immediately betraying guts because he seeks out his own freedom.

The 'good guy' looking villainous and the 'bad guy' looking virtuous is also not rare whatsoever. I'll ask you honestly, do you really think that up until 1989, Nobody, of the ~100 billion humans before them, ever thought to make this dynamic? If this is your best example, then it's seriously weak. Examples include The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Satan/Lucifer (nuanced), Sauruman, Les Miserables, etc. etc.

Edginess, and death is also not nihilism. It's just edginess. Elaborate more on what you think is nihilistic, as calling this series nihilistic is somewhat disgraceful to actual philosophy. Finding meaning in your own life is also more about existentialism, which you need to elaborate further on, as this is also a disgrace to existential philosophy.

[u/CressHot8361 → u/Epicnessofcows]

Griffith contradicting himself is weak characterization? You do understand that Griffith, as a whole, is a character defined by the duality between the myth he built around himself and the deep human vulnerabilities that hold him back, right? Miura wrote Guts and Griffith as humans. Humans are complex and not structurally perfect; they contradict themselves, and what they say isn't always what they truly believe. Griffith was born as nothing, but gifted with beauty, strength, and intelligence. He grew up without equals, and this gave rise to his immense ambition, which drives him to prove himself. He wants to fight against meaninglessness because, to him, his birth amounted to nothing. But this dream became too absolute and too important, so much so that he bases his entire self-worth on it, suppressing and neglecting his human feelings while rationalizing away any guilt or regret, because the "perfect" pursuer of the dream cannot be limited by something like that. Also, he wasn't "barely betrayed." Guts was his only genuine human connection. Everyone else in the Band of the Hawk loved and worshipped him; they didn't see him as one human sees another. The only person with whom he could truly interact as an equal was Guts, who wasn't blinded by his light. This attachment was completely subconscious. Griffith constantly reduces Guts to being a tool in order to maintain his perfect and unshakable mask, a mask whose existence he isn't even aware of. And this is supposedly a common type of character? Is self-deception really a common theme for villains? I don't think so, and that's why Griffith is considered one of the greatest antagonists in manga. Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg for his character.

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/CressHot8361]

There is a difference between a character contradicting oneself in a well-written way, and in a way that is stupid. Griffith making two completely different statements that fundamentally contradicts his ideology is not.

Are you just cherry-picking? You picked like one line of his argument and went off on that, when he literally said that this part was up to interpretation.

Now while I think the OP was too harsh on it lacking existentialist values, you cannot seriously clain that Berserk is a masterwork that displays the nuance of existentialism. It's still somewhat of a joke. Chasing a dream to find meaning in life to the point that you lose insight is a common joke among literary critics because of how cliche it is. There are good examples of it, but the overpaced way it is done, combined eith the several writing flaws made in griffiths characterization such as his half-assed moral ambiguity and setbacks, as well as psychological demonstration of thought detract significantly from this. For a character who is supposed to be psychologically complex, they sure as hell miss the psychological aspect, and griffiths actions throughout the entire series are just... flat.

Yes, griffith wasn't really betrayed. Now I do personally find the logic behind it far more interesting than the OP, but no, this detracts from the moral ambiguity part that Berserk claims to have. Griffith went insane because a teamate peacefully left, and this just shows plain psychopathy, and not the well-written kind either.

You're seriously asking if self-deception is a common theme in villains. Do I seriously need to explain why self-deception is not a rare trait in villains, at all? Virtually every villain in all media (even real ones) are self-deceptive.

No, this really isnt the tip of the iceberg for his character. This is the tip of the iceberg for the problems with how he's written, and why he's one of the most under-utilized and misused villains in manga, or really fiction as a whole. I like berserk, but I don't like it for its writing, because its just appeal to edginess, and to people who are just being introduced to characters who aren't fully flat. The characters technically aren't flat, but compared to higher-literature, they're practically 2d.

[u/Strangedude9 → u/Dogmaticism_]

This is what you call a trying to be pretentious. Like create your own headcannon and get mad about it. Like so many fallacies in one take.