Berserk Video Game Reviews

Hello all,

For almost a year now I've been working on a series of videos which discusses all the Berserk video games that have so far been released, and for their production I've referenced and used this site for researching purposes and to gather general reactions to help understand how they were originally received. Now that I've finished the final video, I'd be happy to share them all with you.

I'm not trying to self-promote myself or my channel or anything like that. But a lot of work went into these and without this site and all the attractive folks who inhabit it, they wouldn't be the same, and I want to share them as a means of saying thanks. They're all quite long and I hope those who are interested can enjoy them!

At any rate, I thank you all for your contributions to Berserk and its community.






(Some mistakes in earlier videos are corrected in the later ones, such as when I call the Beast of Darkness a wolf. I'm so sorry. I tried to be as accurate as possible, but I'm sure those more keen and knowledgeable among you may find further errors)
 
N

Nekra

Guest
Really good video (the berserk and the band of the hawk one) found the part about the pronunciation of beherit really interesting as it has always been a point of contention. i personally find behelit or behelith to roll of the tongue the nicest.
You should do a video about the Souls-games, id like to see a video like that in your style.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Very well done, particularly the editing. You succinctly describe these games, and I paid special attention to the DC game, since I recently played through it and had to think carefully about how to described it myself. One comment: I think the backing music and sound effects often make it a little harder to follow the narration.
 
Really good video (the berserk and the band of the hawk one) found the part about the pronunciation of beherit really interesting as it has always been a point of contention. i personally find behelit or behelith to roll of the tongue the nicest.
You should do a video about the Souls-games, id like to see a video like that in your style.
Thanks a lot. I also personally prefer 'Behelit' myself and its what I choose to say casually. Ultimately its a made up thing so I have no issues with how people want to say it. It was just bugging me how nobody seemed to have any good explanation for where it may have come from. I could have made a whole video with my research but I had to condense it all down pretty hard to conserve time. I hope it came across sensibly and didn't seem like I was taking huge logical leaps.
As for Souls, I'm not against it but I have no idea what I could bring to the table for that. Those games have been picked apart and interpreted every which way to the point that even the kitchen sink has long since been thrown out already. It's like, "Oh look, another Souls 'analysis' video." I like the games. I like talking about them. But for videos, I think my time could be better spent exploring games that aren't quite as well known, or at least haven't had every line of code data-mined 2 months before release. But who knows? Inspiration could rouse me to it.

Very well done, particularly the editing. You succinctly describe these games, and I paid special attention to the DC game, since I recently played through it and had to think carefully about how to described it myself. One comment: I think the backing music and sound effects often make it a little harder to follow the narration.
Thanks, man. It's an honor. SotB is certainly an odd one, but there's definitely a reason it never migrated off the DreamCast. Funnily enough it feels like the most 'complete' Berserk game, for whatever that's worth.
Sound-mixing can be pretty challenging. Trying to balance so that background music is not too loud for headphones, but not too quiet for ordinary speakers, and also contending with songs that have quiet parts and then loud parts, etc. I worry a lot that the music might be barely audible or too loud and I try to be mindful, but sometimes it may not work out in all cases. Especially with such long videos where it's tedious to check. It's something I'm well aware of and am working on, and I appreciate your input. I also really need to take some time and get real captions out there.
Anyways, thanks again!
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
I also personally prefer 'Behelit' myself and its what I choose to say casually. Ultimately its a made up thing so I have no issues with how people want to say it. It was just bugging me how nobody seemed to have any good explanation for where it may have come from.
Hi! This talk about beherit led me to skim through your video. Just wanted to let you know that your explanation for "beherit" is completely wrong. Simply put, there's no way "berit" can be "stretched" into "beherit" in Japanese. That's just not how it works. As far as we know, the word does come from the Syriac name "beherit". That is attested by J. Charles Wall in his book Devils, first published in 1904. Here is a picture from my own copy:



It's a proper name though, not a generic word for "devil" or "satan" or whatever. That's why it's important to only refer yourself to trusted sources for this kind of information. And of course it must be noted that Miura himself hasn't revealed where he got the name from (or if he got it from somewhere at all).

Also, no, it isn't "more accurate" to call the Beast of Darkness "the hound" than its actual name (the Beast of Darkness). You say there's no correct interpretation, but it's literally called that in the manga so there's no ambivalence about it. It's clearly got canine-like characteristics, but it's not meant to represent a real animal or anything. Don't take this badly but it seems you didn't really read the manga before doing these videos right? If so I think you should have maybe tried to avoid delving into the lore too much.

I haven't really checked the rest but if you have questions about these sorts of details in the future please don't hesitate to reach out to me.

i personally find behelit or behelith to roll of the tongue the nicest.
I can guarantee you 100% that "behelith" is not a correct pronunciation for that name. It ends with a hard "t".
 
...Just wanted to let you know that your explanation for "beherit" is completely wrong. Simply put, there's no way "berit" can be "stretched" into "beherit" in Japanese. That's just not how it works. As far as we know, the word does come from the Syriac name "beherit". That is attested by J. Charles Wall in his book Devils, first published in 1904. Here is a picture from my own copy:

It's a proper name though, not a generic word for "devil" or "satan" or whatever. That's why it's important to only refer yourself to trusted sources for this kind of information. And of course it must be noted that Miura himself hasn't revealed where he got the name from (or if he got it from somewhere at all).
Ooh! Never heard of that book before. Never came up in any searches I made (though admittedly I'm not skilled in the arts of reseach, I hit the tenth page of Google and call it a day) I should hope it's true, but I'd hesitate to lean on it. At the very least it bears larger credence than what sources I could find, which were practically nonexistent.
I'd still argue that it's not a Syriac word, though. (When I plug in 'beherit' into a Syriac transliterator I get "ܒܸܗܸܪ݂ܬ" which yields 0 results from google, but of course this is a flawed approach)
Perhaps the being itself has its origin in Syriac history, but the name "Beherit" isn't, it's probably one of several names used to refer to it (Just as it also lists "Moloch" which is one of many names that bears little resemblance to its origins). I don't know anything about the languages these names come from though so that's just a guess.

Anywho, let's assume it is at least Syriac in origin. My theory simply makes the connection of the name Beherit, to the demon Ba'al Berith, who's name breaks down to 'berith' and by extension, 'berit' as part of it's root (in essence berit is the root of beherit). It's a leap, I admit, I'm just working with what I could find to present an alternative explanation from the view of a layperson.
I simply present that a connection with a Hebrew word that means 'covenant' to be a potential origin. Maybe it's a word that Miura had heard about only through speech and misinterpreted, or warped himself that coincidentally shares the name of an obscure demon (this is what I meant by stretching it out, not in a literal translation sense). Or maybe he did just use the demon itself, my argument just states berit as the root. I'm not saying these are good theories, I just want to make a case as a potentiality.

I in no way assert this as the truth. My main point of contention is that Beherit was a Syriac word, and while it could come from a being whose origins stem from Syriac history/mythology, I don't believe the word itself is, and I just wanted to take the word we have and posit something else as an alternative explanation using connections of what I could find, tenuous as they are.
It's a bit silly to theorycraft since we'll never really know short of asking Miura himself, and perhaps I should have just left it alone. But I thought it was at least a fun coincidence and the main purpose was just to state that nobody really knows for sure.

Also, no, it isn't "more accurate" to call the Beast of Darkness "the hound" than its actual name (the Beast of Darkness). You say there's no correct interpretation, but it's literally called that in the manga so there's no ambivalence about it. It's clearly got canine-like characteristics, but it's not meant to represent a real animal or anything. Don't take this badly but it seems you didn't really read the manga before doing these videos right? If so I think you should have maybe tried to avoid delving into the lore too much.
Haha, you certainly caught me trying to save some face on this one! So let me push it further! My argument is, if you are introduced to the Beast without knowing of its name (as is the case in the PS2 game) then you'd be less wrong to call it a hound (not THE hound) over a wolf. (the use of "more accurate" was poor wording on my part) I then I state that there's no true interpretation, not because it doesn't have a name, but that it's just an amorphous undefinable entity, so trying to define it or categorize it is problematic. So I then say that calling it a hound isn't suitable either and that Beast truly is the best way to describe it.


I explain it this way to sort of step-by-step guide newcomers to that conclusion rather than simply stating "Beast" de facto without explaining it. I could have just said "The Manga calls it The Beast of Darkness" but I wanted to explain on a deeper level why my my wolf blunder was so wrong, so I walk through all the ways that calling it anything other than "Beast" is inherently wrong by its own right. But at least by saying hound you're closer to the mark than wolf.



I have a tendency to lose some clarity of my explanations in my attempts to distill information into bite-size chunks for a video. Maybe that makes me sound ignorant (and in some aspects I'm sure that I am), but I'm happy to try to improve on that front moving forward.

Thank you for your help!
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
I'd still argue that it's not a Syriac word, though. (When I plug in 'beherit' into a Syriac transliterator I get "ܒܸܗܸܪ݂ܬ" which yields 0 results from google, but of course this is a flawed approach)
Like I said, it's supposed to be a proper noun, one that comes from folklore. Machine translation will not help you with that and it is absolutely not an authoritative take on anything anyway.

Perhaps the being itself has its origin in Syriac history, but the name "Beherit" isn't, it's probably one of several names used to refer to it (Just as it also lists "Moloch" which is one of many names that bears little resemblance to its origins). I don't know anything about the languages these names come from though so that's just a guess.
One of several names to refer to what though? Like I said it's not presented as a generic word but a specific name... Like, Krishna for example. Moloch is another name for another being also emanating from folklore.

Or maybe he did just use the demon itself, my argument just states berit as the root. I'm not saying these are good theories, I just want to make a case as a potentiality.
Well, like I said, the way Japanese transliteration works makes it unlikely the word "berit" could change into "beherit". Miura would have had to take inspiration from it but decide to change its spelling to make it a different word, which feels far less likely than him using another existing word that happens to be spelled and pronounced exactly the same.

I in no way assert this as the truth. My main point of contention is that Beherit was a Syriac word, and while it could come from a being whose origins stem from Syriac history/mythology, I don't believe the word itself is
Haha, but you don't know anything about the Syriac language or folklore do you? Then why are you so sure? Sorry, I'm not trying to slam you or anything, but I think you're a bit too casual in dismissing that connection.

It's a bit silly to theorycraft since we'll never really know short of asking Miura himself, and perhaps I should have just left it alone. But I thought it was at least a fun coincidence and the main purpose was just to state that nobody really knows for sure.
I get it, and it can be hard to find a name's origin. It's easy to be misled too. I didn't mean to launch into an argument or anything, just wanted to let you know there's actually good evidence of where the word beherit comes from (the ancient Middle East).

Haha, you certainly caught me trying to save some face on this one! So let me push it further! My argument is, if you are introduced to the Beast without knowing of its name (as is the case in the PS2 game) then you'd be less wrong to call it a hound (not THE hound) over a wolf.
I don't really think so to be honest. It doesn't actually look like a hound. :ganishka: I get your meaning though, the whole hunting thing (and I know "hound" can refer to various breeds), but there's not much depth to it. Anyway, it's no big deal, but I think it's important to understand that Miura deliberately chose to call it a beast instead of another more specific word. Especially since it's kind of shape-shifting from one appearance to the next.

 
One of several names to refer to what though? Like I said it's not presented as a generic word but a specific name... Like, Krishna for example. Moloch is another name for another being also emanating from folklore.
In reference to the original being/demon/deity. Across time and translations even proper names transform and/or combine with others. I know next to nothing about Indian deities, but at a cursory glance I can see Krishna has a fair share of alternate names and interpretations that muddy up exactly who or what he may be. (Is he a delineation of Vishnu or Vishnu himself or his own entity or all at once?) By that logic is it then only proper to refer to the God of Israel as JHWH?

So I'm not arguing against The-Being-Now-Known-As-Beherit as being Syriac. By all accounts, he probably is. but that the literal construction of the name we have, might not be the same as what it was.

We say "Jesus", Hebrews say "Yeshua", Syriacs say "Eeshu" What we have is different from what it was. "Jesus" Is not a Syriac word, merely derived from one (maybe, I don't know the full definitive history of the name but it's something like that, you get the idea). I'm proffering that the same logic could be applied to "Behelit". It could have originally been Fred for all we know.

I mention "Moloch" because the name doesn’t refer to a single entity. In one particular sense it could, but it is also the chosen name to refer to several gods around the same area who share a common trait, in this case child sacrifice. The particular spelling and pronunciation of "Moloch" comes from a Latin translation of the Bible, so it is not a Syriac name either. If Moloch isn't the Syriac name (among others listed) why should Beherit be?

Who's to say that "Beherit" wasn't subject to a similar scenario as Moloch? It very well could be the exact word as spoken in Syriac. But there are layers upon layers of ambiguity associated with the names of beings such as this, so forgive me if I choose to be skeptical of what specific language our word belongs to or how it developed.

My issue is with the statement "Beherit is a Syriac word for [a] devil" when perhaps it should be said "Beherit is a word for a Syriac devil (or demon or whatever).

...Miura would have had to take inspiration from it but decide to change its spelling to make it a different word, which feels far less likely than him using another existing word that happens to be spelled and pronounced exactly the same.
Who's to say what is more or less likely? For all we know it could arise from some other totally undiscovered source, maybe it fell from Heaven on a gold trimmed manuscript, or maybe some old crone tried to sell him something like it when he was young and that's what she called it. I can throw out 'maybes' all day. The fact that it lines up with another word is purely circumstantial. You can use Occam's razor to make a fiat decision, which is a fine compromise to make and I’m happy to stand behind you on it. But we lack the information necessary to rule it as more or less probable than being one of any number of potential coincidences and therefor can't discredit them just because they seem less likely to us. Only from the horse's mouth can we learn the truth on this one.

Haha, but you don't know anything about the Syriac language or folklore do you? Then why are you so sure? Sorry, I'm not trying to slam you or anything, but I think you're a bit too casual in dismissing that connection.
'Course not, and I'd bet neither does Miura (or does he!?). Truth is I'm not sure of anything. It's not dismissal, It's reluctance. Based on the uncertainty afforded by the ambiguity of words across languages over time.

I get it, and it can be hard to find a name's origin. It's easy to be misled too. I didn't mean to launch into an argument or anything, just wanted to let you know there's actually good evidence of where the word beherit comes from (the ancient Middle East).
Hey forums like this are just the right place for this kind of argument! I like it; makes me think and learn new things.

My position is that beherit comes from the Middle East the same way the Bible does. That's where it was created, but while the book on your shelf has similarities it has been altered, tampered, and curated over the ages to create something not quite as it once was.

Heh, course now I've gone far deeper in on this than I ever intended to go. In the video I just wanted to state that it wasn't a word for Devil or Satan. That's all. I knew that on some level that it was a demon and didn't concern myself with its origin, and I accepted that and launched into my crazy theory from there.

Did I lead myself down the garden path? probably, I'm just trying to figure things out for myself on some level. I'm WAAAAAAAAY beyond my element on this and I probably sound like some Moon landing conspiracy theorist, and I'm sure my "research" techniques aren't too dissimilar. Looking for meaning where maybe there isn't any, so I won't pretend to know any more than anyone else. I could be confusing skepticism with blindness for all I know. My ignorance is the cradle of my doubt so I don't oblige you or anyone else to take me seriously if you're skeptical of my own process. But thank you for entertaining them regardless. :)

I don't really think so to be honest. It doesn't actually look like a hound. [...] but I think it's important to understand that Miura deliberately chose to call it a beast instead of another more specific word. Especially since it's kind of shape-shifting from one appearance to the next.
I'd say it definitely does on occasion. Certainly not directly compared to a Basset, but I didn't mean it strictly taxonomically anyway, I say hound more abstractly as a catchall for dog-like in its features and due to a potential correlation with Guts as he appears in Casca's Dream (Where they call him a hound, at least in the translation I read).

The Beast is not literally a hound because it's not literally anything, just a psychological menace plaguing Guts' thoughts (or something along those lines), but that complex ethereal concept has to be represented to us as readers visually (though I guess it may be that it also "exists" as a projection of od or something but that's not really my concern at the moment) and when it's on the page, I'd say it looks like a dog. An evil hound to contrast against Guts as the good, well-natured hound.

it's stylized with sharp wicked angles that aren't like any living thing, but just because it has those crazy shapes for eyes doesn't mean they aren't eyes. It's an interpretation, not categorization. So if it warps its shape and takes on alternate attributes such as human arms, I fail to see a far enough delineation for the essence of it's beastliness to not still be canine at it's core. The primal ferocity like that of a wild dog is what I mean when I refer to it as a hound, regardless of whether it is literally shaped entirely like one from one panel to the next.

It is still at its core not a hound or a dog or anything of the sort. As you say, It is a Beast, but only because a Hound can't grow hands.

If I say my inner Picasso is coming out when I paint, I'm saying "Picasso" as a general reference to artistic style and skill like that of Picasso.

If I were to draw out that concept as a comic or manga artist, I might draw a mini Picasso guiding my hand. I could then go on to call that representation "The Muse of the Artist" as a title, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the representation of the Muse is still a mini Picasso. At it's core it's just a Muse because I use the term to explain why there's a miniature Picasso that no one else can see, but that doesn't make it not Picasso. Literally a Muse as a concept, spiritually Picasso in its manifestation.

The Muse is my inner Picasso, The Beast is Guts' inner hound. If you don't believe it looks like a hound, then you're free to find your own word (perhaps mutt, mongrel, foxy, or fish). I've chosen hound as a descriptor because I can see the resemblance even in a Basset, and I think it fits. If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear how you see it. If our visualizations differ, at least grant me the credibility in thinking through this method of interpretation.


Sorry if I sound condescending or confrontational, It's just a flaw in how I'm able to explain myself. I'd like to think we agree on most things and this kind of vague complexity isn't particularly constructive to chase after to this distance (I suppose that's actually my fault, then. Maybe I'm just petty). I'm not out to change your mind, just to defend how mine works and see if I've got any holes past the ones I already know of.

I hope you don't think it arrogant of me to assert my views against yours. I recognize you've been with Berserk far longer than I have and have no doubt gone over issues such as this many times before, so I thank you for your patience in dealing with my harebrained ideas.

(And sorry that I made this post half a novel)
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
My issue is with the statement "Beherit is a Syriac word for [a] devil" when perhaps it should be said "Beherit is a word for a Syriac devil (or demon or whatever).
Well, isn't that what I said to begin with? The point is just that there's a trace of this word existing. But whatever source you used for your video was wrong about it. More generally, there's A LOT of incorrect information about Berserk out there. A disproportionate amount of people seem to be misinformed about it, even though they speak with an air of authority. It's very unfortunate.

We say "Jesus", Hebrews say "Yeshua", Syriacs say "Eeshu" What we have is different from what it was. "Jesus" Is not a Syriac word, merely derived from one (maybe, I don't know the full definitive history of the name but it's something like that, you get the idea). I'm proffering that the same logic could be applied to "Behelit". It could have originally been Fred for all we know.
I think you're kind of confusing the issue here by going into the evolution of languages and the particulars of historical transliterations (while not being versed in the topic, which is very complex). But this doesn't matter. What matters is the spelling of the word Beherit. There are only two possible spellings: Beherit or Behelit. Beherit is the more likely one based on the fact such a word actually exists. That's all.

Who's to say what is more or less likely?
I am, as someone who's been following Berserk in detail for over 15 years, and who has correctly found the spellings of many Berserk names before we got an official confirmation for them.

For all we know it could arise from some other totally undiscovered source
We certainly don't know where Miura got the word from, as I mentioned. But we have a plausible source for it.

The fact that it lines up with another word is purely circumstantial. You can use Occam's razor to make a fiat decision, which is a fine compromise to make and I’m happy to stand behind you on it.
Sounds like you're not very happy to stand behind me on this actually. :ganishka: But yeah, like I said, there's two possible spellings and the fact the word "Beherit" can be attested to exist weighs in its favor. There's not much more to say about it. Hopefully it gets officially clarified as some point (I've been waiting for many years).

I'd say it definitely does on occasion. Certainly not directly compared to a Basset, but I didn't mean it strictly taxonomically anyway, I say hound more abstractly as a catchall for dog-like in its features and due to a potential correlation with Guts as he appears in Casca's Dream (Where they call him a hound, at least in the translation I read).
He's just called a dog in the dream. But that's not directly related to the Beast of Darkness, which is only ever referred to by that name.

The Beast is not literally a hound because it's not literally anything, just a psychological menace plaguing Guts' thoughts (or something along those lines)
More or less, yes.

though I guess it may be that it also "exists" as a projection of od or something
No, that's not how it works with the armor, it's the opposite way around. But that's another discussion.

when it's on the page, I'd say it looks like a dog.


I fail to see a far enough delineation for the essence of it's beastliness to not still be canine at it's core.
Let me quote what I said to you earlier: "It's clearly got canine-like characteristics, but it's not meant to represent a real animal or anything."

The primal ferocity like that of a wild dog is what I mean when I refer to it as a hound, regardless of whether it is literally shaped entirely like one from one panel to the next.
But the very definition of a hound is that of a trained dog, one that helps its master hunt but never takes the prey for itself. So it's actually the antithesis of the primal ferocity (that of a wild beast) you mention here. :slan:

It is still at its core not a hound or a dog or anything of the sort. As you say, It is a Beast, but only because a Hound can't grow hands.
No, it's a beast because that's what Miura chose to make it. He made it a vaguely canine-like raging beast, one born from the darkness within Guts. He could have made it anything he wanted, could have named it anything he wanted, but he deliberately chose to call it a beast instead of another word. A shape-shifting beast whose appearance changes almost everytime we see it. Because it's not a real animal, merely a representation of the darkness within Guts.

The Beast is Guts' inner hound. If you don't believe it looks like a hound, then you're free to find your own word (perhaps mutt, mongrel, foxy, or fish).
Or I can use its actual name, given to it by the author: The Beast of Darkness. And then I'll happen to be correct about it.

Sorry if I sound condescending or confrontational, It's just a flaw in how I'm able to explain myself.
You sound like someone who does not like to admit that they're wrong. And who does really? But sometimes it's best to let go, accept that things weren't quite how we thought, and move on from there. You were right to realize the Beast of Darkness isn't a wolf. Now all you have to do is realize it's not a hound either. That it's not any kind of specific dog. You're almost there. It's just one more step.

I hope you don't think it arrogant of me to assert my views against yours. I recognize you've been with Berserk far longer than I have and have no doubt gone over issues such as this many times before, so I thank you for your patience in dealing with my harebrained ideas.
Don't worry, I'm used to it. :ganishka: And I get it. Finding out that you're wrong about something is unpleasant. I sure don't like it myself. And getting into details like these is where it's easiest to be misled, especially if you can't check the original Japanese. But at the end of the day, these are simple matters. The correct spelling of beherit is probably "beherit". The Beast of Darkness is named "The Beast of Darkness". It's a polymorphous dog-like beast that embodies Guts' darkest feelings and urges.
 
Well, isn't that what I said to begin with? The point is just that there's a trace of this word existing. But whatever source you used for your video was wrong about it. More generally, there's A LOT of incorrect information about Berserk out there. A disproportionate amount of people seem to be misinformed about it, even though they speak with an air of authority. It's very unfortunate.
Yes, I even found my own trace. And my source wasn't related to Berserk either. It was "The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology" by Rosemary Ellen Guiley. I don't think it's a great source because the author seems to be a bit crackpot and I'm hesitant to believe most things related to the occult simply because they've been written down and published, lots of mad stuff has been put to paper. She connects Beherit to the Loudun Possessions, which I couldn't find any corroborating evidence to support. But I noticed her description was almost word for word identical to what the Wikipedia article had for Ba'al Berith (which may be evidence to discredit her but I haven't looked into it) so I just took that and ran with it.

Again, I don't think it's a good source, but as I said it was the only one I could find that wasn't related to the band or Berserk. (I even tried reaching out to the guy who wrote the Allmusic article and the members of the band to see where they got it from but I didn't have any luck getting in touch, not that it would have made much of a difference) It's overall an elusive name so that made me dubious of it's authenticity.

I think you're kind of confusing the issue here by going into the evolution of languages and the particulars of historical transliterations (while not being versed in the topic, which is very complex). But this doesn't matter. What matters is the spelling of the word Beherit. There are only two possible spellings: Beherit or Behelit. Beherit is the more likely one based on the fact such a word actually exists. That's all.
It doesn't take an expert to see that words change over time and across languages. But you're right, I think we're arguing different points here. You're concerned with the spelling just because the word is here as it is now, I'm with you on that. Regardless of where it came from, it's definitely here in ink now and we can see it and use it. I'm just offering more arguments that the word itself might not be Syriac, to which you seem to agree as quoted above.

I am, as someone who's been following Berserk in detail for over 15 years, and who has correctly found the spellings of many Berserk names before we got an official confirmation for them.
I get that someone needs to draw a line somewhere and decide that "this is the best we've got so this is the way that it is, now can we all stop being so wishy-washy and throwing out 'what if's about it all day and move on to more actually debatable subjects?" you're more than welcome to make that connection but that doesn't give one the authority to use that as an excuse to close oneself off of the possibility that it's wrong and dismiss discussions for any other potential explanations. (I'm not referring to you specifically, but rather any member of a community as a whole including myself) Again, the appearance of likelihood, doesn't actually make it more likely. I'm not challenging the decision, I'm just pointing out (for the purpose of the video) that it isn't yet set in stone.

I may be wrong in my theory, but I don't think I'm wrong to question the status quo if there's room for error, which by my reasoning there is. (not necessarily in the spelling of the word, but what the word stands for)


Sounds like you're not very happy to stand behind me on this actually. :ganishka: But yeah, like I said, there's two possible spellings and the fact the word "Beherit" can be attested to exist weighs in its favor. There's not much more to say about it. Hopefully it gets officially clarified as some point (I've been waiting for many years).
I do though! Why else would I have used beherit for the rest of the video? If I believed my theory was really more likely than the one for beherit I would have been saying berit all throughout. (I said that I "suspected" it was, but that was forward of me and I'd like to retract that. though I'm still not gonna let it die so easily)

I make it clear in the videos that I don't know anything about Japanese so I'm more than happy to admit my "stretched out" theory is likely bogus.

If you held a gun to my head I'd say Miura saw the name "beherit" somewhere and used it for himself.

My theory doesn't reject that as a possibility, but goes some ways towards answering the question "Why the name Beherit in particular?" because if Beherit and Ba'al Berith are in reference to the same entity, "Lord of the Covenant" is a title that helps make the choice of that particular name seem sensible for Miura to choose over any other particular demon.

But accepting that means one also has to accept that because the demon Beherit's name has it's roots in the word "berit" (unless that can be proven otherwise) that the use of 'beherit' is potentially an unintentional (or deliberate) obfuscation when the intent may have for 'berit'.

That's really weird wording, but It's difficult to explain plainly. Again I'm not trying to convince anyone, just stating that what I'm putting forward is, as of yet, not falsifiable until further evidence is collected. (But I wouldn't be surprised to find some evidence disproving me. I am very ignorant.)

I don't have high hopes, But I wanted to put something original forward for the video rather than parroting the bland statements on the wiki. (but maybe that makes me a hypocrite since a lot of my "research" was done through Wikipedia. Heh. Thank goodness I'm not actually in charge of deciding these things.)

No, it's a beast because that's what Miura chose to make it. He made it a vaguely canine-like raging beast, one born from the darkness within Guts. He could have made it anything he wanted, could have named it anything he wanted, but he deliberately chose to call it a beast instead of another word. A shape-shifting beast whose appearance changes almost everytime we see it. Because it's not a real animal, merely a representation of the darkness within Guts.
As I understand you seem to take particular issue with the word "hound" as opposed to the more general "dog" or "canine" because a hound is a more isolated subset of dogs as a whole, and so describing the beast as a "hound" implies that it has traits specifically aligned more towards hounds than it does with dogs as a whole (same for wolf). To that I agree, there's nothing particularly specific about the Beast across its spectrum of appearances that correlates to hound breeds phylogenetically or behaviorly speaking(Other than maybe hunting). (although counterpoint, if it's an evil hound, who says it has to be loyal to it's master or training?)

Or I can use its actual name, given to it by the author: The Beast of Darkness. And then I'll happen to be correct about it.
I don't think you're thinking about this in the proper context. the line I used in the video was only meant to back peddle to say that I'd rather have misinformed to say hound than to have said wolf, because at least "hound" would have had a modicum of substantiation and also gets closer to just saying dog-like, which is then closer still to beast. (And it should be specified I use "hound" more in line with something like a hellhound rather than real-life dogs anyway)

You sound like someone who does not like to admit that they're wrong. And who does really? But sometimes it's best to let go, accept that things weren't quite how we thought, and move on from there. You were right to realize the Beast of Darkness isn't a wolf. Now all you have to do is realize it's not a hound either. That it's not any kind of specific dog. You're almost there. It's just one more step.
This isn't a disagreement for what the Beast of Darkness is though, this is a disagreement of how I presented it. You seem to be caught up in the semantics. I'm not calling the beast a hound, but to correlate it in part with one as an abstraction is not inappropriate.

Maybe you think I'm trying to weasel my way out of owning up to a mistake, but you have to remember that I'm merely presenting the "hound" connection as an alternate assumption to make as opposed to "wolf" (for those unfamiliar to Berserk) and I prefaced that this stream-of-consciousness logic was "more my head-canon" on my way to fully explaining that "Beast is the most appropriate and encompassing term for this particular 'character'." essentially all I'm saying is "it's not right to say hound, but at least it's a less stupid thing to say as opposed to wolf. But you should still say 'beast' because 'hound" still isn't good enough in addition to the fact that 'beast' is the official title."

Now you can argue that I should have explained it more frankly, and stated only the facts so as to not confuse people or accidentally lead them down the wrong paths. "The Beast is a beast, and that's that." But I wanted to say it more creatively, and explain complex subjects in easily digestible ways. "It's more like a doggy, innit? and Guts is kinda like a doggy if you think about it, isn't he? but it's not a doggy tho izzit? it's almost like you can't categorize it as anything can ya?" etc. But I'd rather say hound than doggy because I think hound has more bite (so to speak).

and I go on to mentioning that there's no definitive interpretation because in my opinion, not even "beast" does a good job at describing what it's meant to represent. You have to read the manga to truly appreciate what it embodies. I'm not arguing against the fact that there are official titles, but that it isn't quite as clear as how the title describes it. That would be boring, and Berserk is anything but.
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Yes, I even found my own trace. And my source wasn't related to Berserk either. It was "The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology" by Rosemary Ellen Guiley. I don't think it's a great source because the author seems to be a bit crackpot and I'm hesitant to believe most things related to the occult simply because they've been written down and published, lots of mad stuff has been put to paper. She connects Beherit to the Loudun Possessions, which I couldn't find any corroborating evidence to support. But I noticed her description was almost word for word identical to what the Wikipedia article had for Ba'al Berith (which may be evidence to discredit her but I haven't looked into it) so I just took that and ran with it.

Again, I don't think it's a good source, but as I said it was the only one I could find that wasn't related to the band or Berserk. (I even tried reaching out to the guy who wrote the Allmusic article and the members of the band to see where they got it from but I didn't have any luck getting in touch, not that it would have made much of a difference) It's overall an elusive name so that made me dubious of it's authenticity.
Don't take this badly but I'm not sure why you're telling me this. You found some information on the Internet that seemed dubious, which is a common occurrence. That's Ok. At the end of the day, what matters is that the word "Beherit" in Berserk isn't likely to be a reference to "berit" in Hebrew in the way that you described in the video. That's all. I'm not passing judgment or anything here, and you don't have to justify yourself. I'm just giving you some information.

It doesn't take an expert to see that words change over time and across languages. But you're right, I think we're arguing different points here. You're concerned with the spelling just because the word is here as it is now, I'm with you on that. Regardless of where it came from, it's definitely here in ink now and we can see it and use it. I'm just offering more arguments that the word itself might not be Syriac, to which you seem to agree as quoted above.
I just don't see how this is relevant at all. The issue here is how to spell the word "ベヘリット" using the Latin alphabet. The etymology of the word "beherit" in the Syriac language isn't the point. Especially since we're not Aramaic experts.

I get that someone needs to draw a line somewhere and decide that "this is the best we've got so this is the way that it is, now can we all stop being so wishy-washy and throwing out 'what if's about it all day and move on to more actually debatable subjects?" you're more than welcome to make that connection but that doesn't give one the authority to use that as an excuse to close oneself off of the possibility that it's wrong and dismiss discussions for any other potential explanations. (I'm not referring to you specifically, but rather any member of a community as a whole including myself) Again, the appearance of likelihood, doesn't actually make it more likely. I'm not challenging the decision, I'm just pointing out (for the purpose of the video) that it isn't yet set in stone.

I may be wrong in my theory, but I don't think I'm wrong to question the status quo if there's room for error, which by my reasoning there is. (not necessarily in the spelling of the word, but what the word stands for)
Look, I can only repeat myself here: there are only two spellings being considered for the word, "beherit" and "behelit". Now in Japanese there's no letter 'L', so by default it's transliterated as "beherit". There also happens to be a preexisting word spelled "Beherit". That's why we favor that spelling over the other one.

I do though! Why else would I have used beherit for the rest of the video? If I believed my theory was really more likely than the one for beherit I would have been saying berit all throughout. (I said that I "suspected" it was, but that was forward of me and I'd like to retract that. though I'm still not gonna let it die so easily)

I make it clear in the videos that I don't know anything about Japanese so I'm more than happy to admit my "stretched out" theory is likely bogus.
Ok but then I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation.

My theory doesn't reject that as a possibility, but goes some ways towards answering the question "Why the name Beherit in particular?" because if Beherit and Ba'al Berith are in reference to the same entity, "Lord of the Covenant" is a title that helps make the choice of that particular name seem sensible for Miura to choose over any other particular demon.
I think you overestimate how much Miura cared about any specific meaning behind the name. He probably just thought it sounded cool and fitting.

As I understand you seem to take particular issue with the word "hound" as opposed to the more general "dog" or "canine" because a hound is a more isolated subset of dogs as a whole, and so describing the beast as a "hound" implies that it has traits specifically aligned more towards hounds than it does with dogs as a whole (same for wolf).
I take issue with calling it anything other than the name it is given in the manga: The Beast of Darkness. Much like I'd take issue with someone calling Guts "The Dark Slasher" instead of "The Black Swordsman".

(although counterpoint, if it's an evil hound, who says it has to be loyal to it's master or training?)
If you're removing the only thing that makes a hound a hound by the general definition (you've already said it doesn't resemble one), then why are you calling it a hound again?

I don't think you're thinking about this in the proper context. the line I used in the video was only meant to back peddle to say that I'd rather have misinformed to say hound than to have said wolf, because at least "hound" would have had a modicum of substantiation and also gets closer to just saying dog-like, which is then closer still to beast.
I'm not calling the beast a hound, but to correlate it in part with one as an abstraction is not inappropriate.
essentially all I'm saying is "it's not right to say hound, but at least it's a less stupid thing to say as opposed to wolf.
I don't think "hound" has any substantiation to it. And I don't think it's any better than "wolf". A wolf is at least a wild animal and not a domesticated, trained one. That's an important meaning included in the word "beast". Either way, it doesn't matter much. It's specifically called a beast and not anything else.

Maybe you think I'm trying to weasel my way out of owning up to a mistake
Pretty much yeah. :ganishka:
 
N

Nekra

Guest
Well I'm just saying that you're pronouncing it wrong.
Yea i get that, it just comes off weird correcting random stuff.
i said it in response to a video concluding that "Berit" is the correct pronunciation. i guess i thought it was implied that i don't think that "behelit" or "behelith" is the correct way of saying it in that context.
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Yea i get that, it just comes off weird correcting random stuff.
I don't know what to tell you. This is a Berserk forum, so yeah we point out the proper spelling and pronunciation of Berserk names. :shrug:

i said it in response to a video concluding that "Berit" is the correct pronunciation. i guess i thought it was implied that i don't think that "behelit" or "behelith" is the correct way of saying it in that context.
I didn't get that from your post, which is why I replied. And given the turn this thread has taken, I don't think you can blame me.
 
At the end of the day, what matters is that the word "Beherit" in Berserk isn't likely to be a reference to "berit" in Hebrew in the way that you described in the video. That's all. I'm not passing judgment or anything here, and you don't have to justify yourself. I'm just giving you some information.
Okay, I'm just making the connections to say that it's possible. What makes it less likely than "Miura chose the name because he thought it sounded cool."?

It's based on shaky evidence, but the estimation of Miura's intention is just as shaky.

I just don't see how this is relevant at all. The issue here is how to spell the word "ベヘリット" using the Latin alphabet. The etymology of the word "beherit" in the Syriac language isn't the point. Especially since we're not Aramaic experts.
It's not relevant to you, who is concerned with translating a Japanese word. But it is relevant to me who is concerned with connecting the name you decided on to another.

I think you overestimate how much Miura cared about any specific meaning behind the name. He probably just thought it sounded cool and fitting.
Could be! Could be just as wacky a coincidence as the "Guts" "Götz" thing.

Imagine I'm just the guy who read about Götz von Berlichingen and put forward the theory that he was the inspiration for the name. It was later proven to be a coincidence, but it was a neat discovery. My berit theory is just the same as that. I'm not saying it's right, it just has yet to be proven wrong.

I take issue with calling it anything other than the name it is given in the manga: The Beast of Darkness.
Right but imagine you hadn't read the manga (or didn't remember much about it) and had just seen the Beast as it appears in the PS2 game. What would you compare it to?

Based on this:
I don't think "hound" has any substantiation to it. And I don't think it's any better than "wolf". A wolf is at least a wild animal and not a domesticated, trained one. That's an important meaning included in the word "beast".
You were happier with the "Wolf" mistake over "Hound" so it seems you really dislike hound because you can't divorce the association to the "trained animal" aspect.
I can (again, think hellhound).

ideally when I wrote the script for the PS2 video I should have gone back and looked up the character name and called it Beast from the get-go. But I didn't. Somehow I just called it Wolf. Obviously I'd rather have said Beast, but take one step down from that and I'd rather have said hound.

You can disagree with that part. That's just a conflict of interpretation for what makes a hound a hound. We can at least agree that the associations that we make when we think of the word "hound" are different.

If I associate "Fish" as "things that live and swim in the water" then there's nothing wrong about me calling a whale or an octopus a fish. It only becomes wrong if I say "Whales and octopus are just as related genetically to a herring and bass as a herring and bass are to each other."

My associations of "hound" are "wild, animalistic hunters" and maybe yours are "calculating, trained, behaviorally restrained subordinates" but even with that definition, any dog can go mad (or berserk, if you will).

So why choose hound over wolf or dog? Well as I stated it was based on the translation of Casca's dream sequence where Schierke refers to Gut's manifestation as both a dog and a hound (Again in the translation I read on mangastream Episode 348 page 7 if you're curious). They seem to use hound interchangeably as a synonym for dog. So do I. It's just meant to be less specific than wolf and more intimidating than dog, and not associative to hound breeds themselves.

Either way, it doesn't matter much. It's specifically called a beast and not anything else.
If it doesn't matter much, then why are you so concerned with how I got to beast if that's where I got to in the end?

We're both in agreement that the beast isn't a hound. at this point we're deciding whether it's appropriate to construe it as like a hound.

That's not me being a weasel, I'm trying not to be misunderstood. If I am being weasel-y, it's not intentional.

On an unrelated note, what's your stance on the "Canon-icity" of Sword of the Berserk?
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Well as I stated it was based on the translation of Casca's dream sequence where Schierke refers to Gut's manifestation as both a dog and a hound (Again in the translation I read on mangastream Episode 348 page 7 if you're curious). They seem to use hound interchangeably as a synonym for dog. So do I.
You're using a bad translation that takes liberties with the wording that's used. For reference, the dog is referred to as a dog (犬) throughout the section that you're referencing.

If you want to see a reliable translation, you could always just look at ours: https://www.skullknight.net/forum/index.php?threads/episode-348-crepuscular-wilderness.15297/

Hound in that instance was a fabrication by scanlators, a group notorious for embellishing things throughout the history of Berserk. In fact, I would wager that the entire reason we're having this conversation about a hound of all things is because scanlators have mistranslated Beast of Darkness as Hellhound in the past. If Miura had wanted to imply this dog was specifically a hound, he'd have used 猟犬 . And if he'd wanted to say the Beast was specifically a Hound or even a Dog, he could have used 猟犬 or 犬, but instead he chose the more abstracted term 獣 .
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Okay, I'm just making the connections to say that it's possible. What makes it less likely than "Miura chose the name because he thought it sounded cool."?
Because it's spelled differently, pronounced differently, and there's really no reason at all to think it was an inspiration? And it's really not very likely that you're the first person to ever find some mysterious connection there.

It's based on shaky evidence, but the estimation of Miura's intention is just as shaky.
The difference is that what I said is informed by previous comments Miura made about similar topics.

It's not relevant to you, who is concerned with translating a Japanese word. But it is relevant to me who is concerned with connecting the name you decided on to another.
It's not relevant to Berserk, which is what this thread, this forum and your video is about. And really, this argument is just an excuse for you to not admit that you were wrong about that whole "berit" thing. We can keep this going forever if you like, but it's not going to change the facts. You say you want to connect words to one another, but there's no reason to do so, and you're doing it without expertise or evidence.

Could be! Could be just as wacky a coincidence as the "Guts" "Götz" thing.
Except it sounds even less similar.

Imagine I'm just the guy who read about Götz von Berlichingen and put forward the theory that he was the inspiration for the name. It was later proven to be a coincidence, but it was a neat discovery. My berit theory is just the same as that. I'm not saying it's right, it just has yet to be proven wrong.
Actually, Miura was the first one to bring up Götz von Berlichingen. No one had ever heard of it before. But yes, many years after that, we had people who argued in bad faith about their "great discovery" (they read it on Wikipedia) and would not accept that they were wrong. And indeed, your berit theory is just the same. As for the "it's yet to be proven wrong" argument, it has been since the dawn of times the last resort of people unwilling to admit a mistake. "Maybe the Skull Knight is a robot from the future. You can't prove it wrong!!" The burden of proof isn't on me.

Right but imagine you hadn't read the manga (or didn't remember much about it) and had just seen the Beast as it appears in the PS2 game. What would you compare it to?
Ok so now we're doing thought experiments? It's also called the Beast of Darkness in the PS2 game. Why are we still talking about this, seriously?

You were happier with the "Wolf" mistake over "Hound" so it seems you really dislike hound because you can't divorce the association to the "trained animal" aspect.
I can (again, think hellhound).
No, I wasn't happier with one mistake over another. The proper name is the Beast of Darkness. And the literal meaning of "hound", from the dictionary, is that of a training animal. You talk of "divorcing associations" and so on but it's really just making things up to justify a mistake you made, and clearly you'll go so far as to rewrite the English language if that's what it takes.

You can disagree with that part. That's just a conflict of interpretation for what makes a hound a hound. We can at least agree that the associations that we make when we think of the word "hound" are different.
You can make up imaginary meanings for words if you want. That's your problem. Fact is, the Beast of Darkness isn't called a "hound", doesn't look like a "hound", doesn't behave like a "hound", is never presented as a "hound", and just plain isn't a "hound".

If I associate "Fish" as "things that live and swim in the water" then there's nothing wrong about me calling a whale or an octopus a fish.
This conversation has become really sad. If you call an octopus "a fish", you're wrong about it. If you call a table "a bench", you're wrong about it. If you call doors "windows", you're wrong about it.

So why choose hound over wolf or dog? Well as I stated it was based on the translation of Casca's dream sequence where Schierke refers to Gut's manifestation as both a dog and a hound (Again in the translation I read on mangastream Episode 348 page 7 if you're curious).
Aside from the fact you really shouldn't read bad translations as that invariably misleads people (case in point), and the fact it's important to support the author by purchasing the books instead of leeching online, the dog in Casca's dream isn't the Beast of Darkness or a representation of it. It's just how Casca pictures Guts in her dream (in which she sees herself as a broken doll in a coffin).

If it doesn't matter much, then why are you so concerned with how I got to beast if that's where I got to in the end?
I think there's a mistake. I don't care about your thought process. My point is simply that the Beast of Darkness isn't a hound, and calling it a hound is incorrect. That's all I've been saying.

We're both in agreement that the beast isn't a hound. at this point we're deciding whether it's appropriate to construe it as like a hound.
Not a hound, not "like" a hound either.

On an unrelated note, what's your stance on the "Canon-icity" of Sword of the Berserk?
It's in a grey zone as far as I'm concerned. It was meant to be part of the story but ended up not fitting in. So it's not canon, but there's nothing inherently wrong about it.
 
You're using a bad translation that takes liberties with the wording that's used. For reference, the dog is referred to as a dog (犬) throughout the section that you're referencing.
Good to know. Thank you for clearing that up. I guess you could say I take the same liberty that they do in that respect.

Because it's spelled differently, pronounced differently, and there's really no reason at all to think it was an inspiration? And it's really not very likely that you're the first person to ever find some mysterious connection there.
That's just the root, it connects up with beherit as we know it. And the concept of creating covenants and potential relation to the name beherit isn't a good reason to think there could have been some correlation? And remember, that's all this is. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

And I'm not the first, actually. I looked around to see if anyone else had independently made the connection and found this reddit thread briefly discussing it. It got brushed off there with the whole "Beherit is the Syriac word for Satan" thing.

So I figured if I could disprove that, the theory might still have legs.

The difference is that what I said is informed by previous comments Miura made about similar topics.
If he made it up because he thought it sounded cool, then it was just coincidence and makes no sense to associate it with the demon. If the case is that they're completely independant of one another then there's no argument for "beherit" over "behelit" other than that it seems to trend towards "r" to an English speaking ear and my theory goes pop.

If he took inspiration from the demon, then there's still hope for my theory, marginal as it may be.

It's not relevant to Berserk, which is what this thread, this forum and your video is about. And really, this argument is just an excuse for you to not admit that you were wrong about that whole "berit" thing. We can keep this going forever if you like, but it's not going to change the facts. You say you want to connect words to one another, but there's no reason to do so, and you're doing it without expertise or evidence.
I'm looking at a word you've chosen to use to support the hard "r" spelling of Beherit. Takes me to far away places, and I admit I can lose myself on occasion, but it all comes back to the beherits of Berserk on a meta level so it is relevant in a roundabout way.

I've supplied as much evidence as I could scrounge, and I've freely and openly admitted that I'm neither experienced in the subjects nor confident in the theory.

As far as I knew when I wrote the script, I couldn't find any evidence to support where the name "Beherit" may have come from, and the way the little information I could find was presented was not accurate. so I put together something of my own to offer in its stead. and I share it with full disclosure that I have 0 level of authority on the subject.

Except it sounds even less similar
You don't still think I'm arguing just 'berit' as the translation, do you? We're on team beherit here, just arguing berit as the root as it relates the the demon.

As for the "it's yet to be proven wrong" argument, it has been since the dawn of times the last resort of people unwilling to admit a mistake. "Maybe the Skull Knight is a robot from the future. You can't prove it wrong!!" The burden of proof isn't on me.
Quite right! Things that are not falsifiable are not worth much discussion, like Bigfoot. I'm self-deprecating my own theory. I keep telling you that I don't believe it yet myself but you're so caught up painting this picture that I can't admit when I'm wrong.

I said in the Sword of the Berserk video that the events of the game were generally viewed as canon. That was wrong. I made an assumption based on my narrow observation and accidentally misinformed those who aren't able to look into it themselves. See?

It's not that I can't say I'm wrong once I know it. But so far I can't draw enough lines to drop the theory completely and abandon it. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I am also willing to make what case I can to defend it as far as is reasonable to me. That boundary hasn't yet been crossed in my eyes.

If you can remove the demon beherit from the beherits of Berserk, then my theory falls apart. Same goes for if you can separate the name Beherit from Ba'al Berith.

Those are the weakest points. You can't attack it by saying I'm not an expert in all the various fields I invoke, I already know that. If that breaches your tolerance then feel free to dismiss me there.

and I'm not compelling you to prove me wrong, because I can't prove that I'm right. It's a matter of what one think is more or less likely. We both think it's unlikely, whether or not its so unlikely so as not to be granted consideration is still up for debate in my book.

Ok so now we're doing thought experiments? It's also called the Beast of Darkness in the PS2 game. Why are we still talking about this, seriously?
We've done a few already. Just trying to put you in my shoes. And actually, it's not. I've played through that game six or seven times and it was never denoted under any title (not in the English translation patch which is pretty shoddy) unless I missed it somewhere. Schierke just calls it his hatred, but I haven't been able to peruse the original text. It is the Beast, of course, but so far as I can tell there's no way any newcomer could know that without outside information.

No, I wasn't happier with one mistake over another. The proper name is the Beast of Darkness. And the literal meaning of "hound", from the dictionary, is that of a training animal. You talk of "divorcing associations" and so on but it's really just making things up to justify a mistake you made, and clearly you'll go so far as to rewrite the English language if that's what it takes.
I'm not making things up, you're taking me far more literally than what I intend. You're sticking with the dictionary, that's fine. I've already told you that the way I refer to hound doesn't abide by the letter of the dictionary definition, it's a looser interpretation which is also in the dictionary by the way: "Informal . any dog."

You can make up imaginary meanings for words if you want. That's your problem. Fact is, the Beast of Darkness isn't called a "hound", doesn't look like a "hound", doesn't behave like a "hound", is never presented as a "hound", and just plain isn't a "hound".
Isn't one, yes. but sure looks like one all throughout the PS2 game.

This conversation has become really sad. If you call an octopus "a fish", you're wrong about it. If you call a table "a bench", you're wrong about it. If you call doors "windows", you're wrong about it.
I had a feeling you'd get caught up on this part. It's difficult to explain briefly. You're confusing categories with definitions. If I categorize "fish" as a thing that lives in the sea, then an octopus is a fish. The problem is that the categorization isn't really useful upon scrutiny if it allows things like octopus and sharks to be in the same category. our modern definition of "fish" is also a category, but it doesn't allow an octopus to fit within it. And the crux of the issue is that all categories are man-made and they're not always air-tight which is why we so often fall back on genetics to make decisions based on things like animals.

I make this example to try to convey that something can be false in one sense, yet isn't in another. You seem so obsessed with calling me wrong when I'm doing my best to express to you that the argument I'm making doesn't apply to your category.

Aside from the fact you really shouldn't read bad translations as that invariably misleads people (case in point), and the fact it's important to support the author by purchasing the books instead of leeching online, the dog in Casca's dream isn't the Beast of Darkness or a representation of it. It's just how Casca pictures Guts in her dream (in which she sees herself as a broken doll in a coffin).
I just read from there to keep up with the Joneses and buy what I can when it's available, but I've bookmarked that spot Walter linked to so no need to fret.

I never said the dog was the beast. I was pointing out the fact that Guts seems to be followed around by a lot of dog imagery. If Casca sees him as a dog, then maybe he sees himself as a dog too and that's why the Beast has assumed so many dog-like traits so often.

I think there's a mistake. I don't care about your thought process. My point is simply that the Beast of Darkness isn't a hound, and calling it a hound is incorrect. That's all I've been saying.
Well, you see all I've been talking about my thought process this whole time because I've never explicitly called the Beast a hound. All I do is say that it expresses traits like one as part of the thought process that leads to the conclusion of Beast. We're both at the same destination and you keep claiming that I'm somewhere else and that I'm wrong about where I am.

Not a hound, not "like" a hound either.
Not a hound, yes obviously. Not "like" a hound? Well that's just like, your opinion, man.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Let's not call the beast a hound. Case closed, everyone?

This discussion has become so hypothetical that it's incredibly hard to see the point in continuing since most everyone agrees on the major points. And I promise you that going quote by quote 10 more posts is not going to move the needle further. So, let's just move along, yeah?
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
That's just the root, it connects up with beherit as we know it.
It doesn't connect up. You think it could, but you have nothing on which to base that assumption. It's just something you want to believe as someone who has "0 level of authority on the subject".

I'm self-deprecating my own theory. I keep telling you that I don't believe it yet myself but you're so caught up painting this picture that I can't admit when I'm wrong.
Look, you've been writing giant posts to defend this thing for a month, and they're all just based on your personal faith that it must be right. You've admitted yourself that you just can't let go of it. No one needs to paint a picture, it's plain for all to see. Meanwhile I've just been repeating the same simple thing: that it's spelled "beherit". You say you agree, so I think we can drop this discussion. Walter is right, big posts quoting one another can only go so far, and we're long past the point where it's taking us no further.

I make this example to try to convey that something can be false in one sense, yet isn't in another. You seem so obsessed with calling me wrong when I'm doing my best to express to you that the argument I'm making doesn't apply to your category. [...] Well, you see all I've been talking about my thought process this whole time because I've never explicitly called the Beast a hound. All I do is say that it expresses traits like one as part of the thought process that leads to the conclusion of Beast. We're both at the same destination and you keep claiming that I'm somewhere else and that I'm wrong about where I am.
Same as above. You're arguing that what's false can be true if you want it to be, biological taxonomy doesn't matter, physical traits are irrelevant to likeness, and the meaning of words can be changed at will... All to say that you're not wrong. My single point is that the Beast of Darkness should be called the Beast of Darkness and nothing else. Since you say you agree, let's leave it at that. You only came here to post your videos and that's been done, so let's not waste each other's time any further.
 
It doesn't connect up. You think it could, but you have nothing on which to base that assumption. It's just something you want to believe as someone who has "0 level of authority on the subject".


It does. Beherit <- Ba'al Berith <- Berith <- Berit. I've shown evidence for each connection on the chain. Not great evidence, but I showed my work, flawed as it may be, and all that one needs to disprove it is evidence to the contrary to break any link in the chain. But saying I have nothing as if I've been making everything up is not an appropriate conclusion.

But in lieu of hard evidence, might I suggest the following: if you were to say "I doubt the authenticity regarding the connection of Beherit to Ba'al Berith based on the lacking credentials of the author of the book used to create that connection and the reliance of corroboration through inadequately sourced Wikipedia descriptions, therefor I do not believe there is substantial evidence in favor of the connection of Beherit to Ba'al Berith or, by association, berit as its origin." You'd have a strong no-frills argument. One that I can't counter as of yet. I'd need to either argue for her credentials (which you already know I won't) or find a better source to mend the link.

Look, you've been writing giant posts to defend this thing for a month, and they're all just based on your personal faith that it must be right. You've admitted yourself that you just can't let go of it.
Not must be, just could be. It's all hypothetical. I'm not in this to prove myself right (because that's impossible). To assume the Beherits of Berserk have any connection to the demon Beherit whatsoever is itself postulative, so any hypotheses born from that assumption are already inherently flawed. If you're willing to bridge that connection for the purpose of choosing 'r' over 'l' for translation, by extension you invite crazy people like me to extend that bridge to further connections.

This has nothing to do with what I believe. I've only been arguing that, as far as speculation goes, It's a theory that has a reasonable amount of backing to be entertained, if only briefly. It's not a matter of blind faith and wishfull thinking; It's just speculation, based on loose evidence and a bit of imagination in the absence of any hard facts. You've attacked my evidence and I've defended it, but that has no relation as to the certainty regarding the degree of which I hold the theory to be accurate. I've been descriptive, not prescriptive.

It's a flawed chain of evidence. Very flawed, in fact. But not for any of the reasons with which you chose to attack it, hence I didn't fold.


You're arguing that what's false can be true if you want it to be, biological taxonomy doesn't matter, physical traits are irrelevant to likeness, and the meaning of words can be changed at will... All to say that you're not wrong.


Well... that's off the mark on all accounts, but perhaps I'd chalk it up to my poor explanations and an eclectic sample of approaches if that's the conclusion you've come to. Either that or there's some degree of bias sparking this dissonance, but I'd volunteer to fall on my own sword rather than make that accusation.



My single point is that the Beast of Darkness should be called the Beast of Darkness and nothing else. Since you say you agree, let's leave it at that.


Rather than stick my foot in my mouth further I'll accept that. But I still don't regret my phrasing in the video.



You only came here to post your videos and that's been done, so let's not waste each other's time any further.


You had criticisms. I addressed them. It would have been a waste to have had something to say and instead said nothing. But I'd like to extend my appreciation once again for your good sportsmanship. (and apologies for the late reply, by the way)
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
It does. Beherit <- Ba'al Berith <- Berith <- Berit. I've shown evidence for each connection on the chain. Not great evidence, but I showed my work, flawed as it may be, and all that one needs to disprove it is evidence to the contrary to break any link in the chain.
The burden of proof rests on the one trying to prove something, not on those who are skeptical of it, and in that regard nothing you've posted in this thread is conclusive.

But in lieu of hard evidence, might I suggest the following: if you were to say "I doubt the authenticity regarding the connection of Beherit to Ba'al Berith based on the lacking credentials of the author of the book used to create that connection and the reliance of corroboration through inadequately sourced Wikipedia descriptions, therefor I do not believe there is substantial evidence in favor of the connection of Beherit to Ba'al Berith or, by association, berit as its origin." You'd have a strong no-frills argument. One that I can't counter as of yet. I'd need to either argue for her credentials (which you already know I won't) or find a better source to mend the link.
Sounds like what I've been saying, just with more frills.

Not must be, just could be. It's all hypothetical. I'm not in this to prove myself right (because that's impossible). [...] This has nothing to do with what I believe. I've only been arguing that, as far as speculation goes, It's a theory that has a reasonable amount of backing to be entertained, if only briefly. It's not a matter of blind faith and wishfull thinking; It's just speculation, based on loose evidence and a bit of imagination in the absence of any hard facts.
Of course, it's merely arguing for the sport of it, not out of actual belief. And no one can know for sure, and no one can prove you wrong.

I still don't regret my phrasing in the video.
Yeah don't worry I had noticed. Good thing we can put that behind us now.
 
Top Bottom