How would you complete Guts' line in episode 287?

[Aazealh]

I'll make this simple, it is not one hundred percent proven that he finished his sentence, intent or not we do not know what happened.

That's beside the point. In any case, whether he could finish his sentence or was interrupted, he did reply to Roderick. The intent was there. He didn't tell him to "forget it" or refuse to answer.

Likely or not, you speak as if its fact.

No, I speak as it is likely. If it were fact, you'd simply be wrong without the shadow of a doubt and you wouldn't be able to indefinitely lengthen this exchange like you're presently doing.

The point is we don't know if he said anything more in front of Schierke, obviously it what meant to sound ridiculous just to show how easily the sentence could have been interrupted.

I don't think you have a point. It was established from the first time that he could have been interrupted, by myself even. You, on the other hand, were saying he paused. I don't think this is leading anywhere. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying because your previous line of argumentation has failed.

We can only use what Miura gives us, which is why I agree when you said, "We can't derive anything from it one way or another", however you were the one who took a shot at what I was saying, so maybe you should think about what you said.

I merely corrected you about your statements because they were being presumptuous. I didn't "take a shot" so much as made a point I thought would help you revise your views to be a little more tolerant of other alternatives. And what I said applied to the look on Roderick's face as he saw Casca endangering herself, not to anything else. You're misrepresenting what I told you again.

The only one mistaken about my meaning is you, obviously when you say to someone that their reasoning is flawed (which is what you said in your first reply to me) your saying that what they think is illogical.

Please, don't be obtuse. I'm not mistaken about what your sentence meant, and now you're changing the subject in an attempt not to admit it. I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you're really confused, but try to understand what I'm telling you at least. And actually, when saying a reasoning is flawed it doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical. You shouldn't take shortcuts like that. A reasoning can be perfectly logical while having one or more flaws that make it invalid. But once again, that's beside the point. We're not here to discuss semantics.

I said that I thought he'd say that she's my... responsibility because I don't believe Guts would express his feelings more openly with someone like Roderick. I know very well what your saying, and to me it makes much more sense that Guts wouldn't say something like "she's the love of my life" or anything else that requires him delving into their relationship, nor could he honestly right now say that she is his woman.

And I told you it's fine what you think. But it's just that. You keep telling me it's not sure Guts finished his sentence (something I said myself first), but on the other hand you seem convinced that Guts couldn't have said anything else than what you believe he did. And that's your mistake. Your proposition isn't more likely than the others, and that's indubitable.

I'm loving your tone, you must of had a big smile on your face as you finished this post.

In truth it ranged from a midly amused smile to boredom as I plowed through it. Like most of the time when I reply to such posts.

As I said your the one who apparently doesn't know what people give you nor do you know what you said when you attacked my reasoning in the first place.

I merely pointed out the error in what you said. Not much of an attack really. It wasn't even related to what you proposed to end Guts' line, just to your reasoning of why something else didn't seem likely. What else do you expect, is this not a discussion forum? Don't expect everyone to agree with everything you say, especially when you're wrong.

I never said my conclusion was better than anyone else's all nor did I try to prove it was, all I did was defend it, first from einherjar, then from you.

Actually, from the first time you avoided addressing what I had really said and moved on to broader or deformed subjects, most of the time being corrected until we reached this point. Which I take it stems from a refusal to admit other possibilities.

Your arrogance is really disgusting, do you take yourself to be a scholar of Berserk?

If by "scholar" you mean "that knows a whole lot of stuff about something" then yes, I guess I am.

It has nothing to do with shyness, more like the fact that its none of Roderick's business

Isn't it? Guts didn't seem to think so, considering how he replied to him. Because you think it's none of his business doesn't make it true. They're travelling together as companions, using Roderick's ship, to go to a fabled island just for her, so even by common standards his question wasn't out of place. Not to mention that it isn't a secret, and that Guts has never made any effort to hide his feelings for her.

their relationship as of now is nonexistent.

Well now that just isn't true. Casca fears him and at best dislikes him, while he still loves her. It's a complicated relationship but it's there.

And by me saying that he wouldn't spill his guts (no pun intended) about his feelings for Casca supports him not being a bleeding heart, I made my choice you just don't see it.

I see it, it's just not that coherent. Answering a simple question isn't the same as spilling his guts. Simplifying everything won't work here.

No, my point in bringing that up was that he doesn't like speaking about things from his past, be it Griffith or Casca.

But you were wrong about it, as I explained you.

You argue that those are too different to compare

Yeah, they sure are.

I'm saying that because of the way Casca is now, anything asked about her is too painful for him to answer in a direct fashion by saying something like she's my lover or woman, and I find it out of character for him to say he loves her to Roderick when he has yet to say it to her.

That's your opinion, which isn't grounded on anything solid. There are way too many possibilities here for your appreciation of Guts' character (which is in all honesty not nearly as good as you think) to matter much.

Again you don't comprehend what I'm saying. Guts made no effort to even say, "If I ever see you again then we can discuss and I'll answer your question", your arguing that had he had the time he would of answered his question, I'm saying he wouldn't have, and that he was avoiding it because again he doesn't like talking about his past.

Oh I understand perfectly well, but it's just preposterous. I'm not arguing he'd have answered if he had had more time, because he did answer anyway. He didn't avoid anything. He answered the question, only cutting the presentations and the discussion short. He was truthful, and there was no need to propose to talk about it at a very improbable later time. Actually, what you're proposing here would definitely have been out of character for him, funnily enough. A blatant example of bad faith on your part.

So you argue my point by telling me (which I already knew) what Schierke and Flora know

That's not what you said.

when my point was that they don't know the intimate details of Griffith and Guts past.

That's not what you said. To be "nearly completely in the dark" doesn't merely mean that they don't know the intimate details of when they had a battle water naked once. You should express yourself better if your point changes with every post you make.

All you just told me is stuff they know about Griffith as the falcon of Light, not in regards to Guts' past with him within the Hawks

No, I told you they know about Griffith, as well as the fact that Guts and him have a connection.

Basically, everything those two know comes from what they could learn by being in touch with the prophecy and by seeing Guts' brand. The others (Isidro, Farnese, Serpico) don't know really anything about Griffith in relation to Guts.

Wrong. Even Farnese was reminded of Griffith in Albion when Guts asked Zodd about him as they were about to leave Vritannis. They all have more or less of a clue, although they indeed do not know the intimate details of their former relationship. But then again, that's not what we were talking about at all.

As it stands I don't think the others (besides Schierke and Puck) even know half of the details to what Guts' is doing, I think most of them just believe his only mission is to fix Casca.

Well his only goal currently is to heal Casca, so there's nothing else for them to believe. That's the reason they've been journeying in the first place. And they've all seen how he feels about Griffith, even though they don't know the details of the past. That's the key here: that knowledge of the past isn't necessary to understands the simplest aspects of the present. Guts' love for Casca needs no immediate explanation; he loves her and that's it.

Again you miss the point. Guts has many issues with his past even prior to the eclipse, now the part of his painful past is mostly due to the eclipse. I brought up the fact that he chose to leave Casca because he did that in order to not be reminded of the events of the eclipse, which would be hard to do if he sees her in the state that she's in, period.

I don't miss the point, it's just unrelated to the present matter.

Since this theme of Guts dealing with the pains of his past runs through all of Berserk it doesn't matter what volume it occured in because its a recurring theme. I can go even further back to Gambino and Donovan, if you'd like.

You can go back to whatever you want, it'll still be unrelated.

You say you don't see how this relates to Owen but didn't Owen say he recognized him from his past with the Hawks and he assumed Guts and Griffith still were in contact with each other. I said that Guts wouldn't want to answer his questions because he doesn't like being reminded of his past.

Hahaha, but Guts did answer Owen's only question, in his usual blunt way. Despite his painful past. And while Owen talked of the past, his actual question was grounded in the present. So you're wrong here.

What I meant by the beast being prominent is that before the eclipse we never saw the anthropomorphic dog form of the beast, whereas now he has taken a shape and his been more involved with the story because of Guts' rage and hatred that been building, especially towards Griffith. He did go into a sleep state but he also forshadowed coming back with ill intentions, so yeah read what you said he's less prominent for now.

Uhh, the Beast of Darkness first appeared in volume 16, before that the character didn't exist. So yeah, we sure didn't see it before the Occultation, or even during it, or anytime before episode 118. And since we're talking neither about the future or the past but the present, the Beast of Darkness is indeed not becoming more prominent at the moment.

It was the point of appearing upset, the point was he avoided the question, and only said it was a long time ago
which shows he wasn't comfortable with the question.

He didn't avoid the question. You know, I suggest you actually read that part again carefully instead of embarrassing yourself again and again. As for looking upset, it only denotes his hatred of Griffith. Lastly, saying it was a long time ago is merely the truth. I can't even think of a better way to put it. You really should stop insisting on all this because you'll never get out of the hole you've dug yourself in.

Again you contradicted yourself. According to you the others know plenty even about Griffith.

No, I only said they know about him, as opposed to you saying they were completely in the dark. Again, you need to learn how to express yourself properly, as well as to be able to read the nuances in what people tell you.

Oh and the point I was making was that if Guts wouldn't tell his companions why would he tell Owen anything.

He didn't need to tell Owen because he already knew what he needed to in order to ask where Griffith was. That comparison has just no reason to be.

I don't know don't you think by now Guts has associated Griffith to the events of the past, his whole reason for trying to kill him is for retribution.

Not necessarily. Griffith is the present as much as the past for Guts, just like Casca is. And he didn't reminisce before answering Owen's question.

Which is why its not debatable at all

Yes it is.

Owen and Roderick both asked questions that involve the past.

But that were completely grounded in the present. Guts' current feeling for Casca and her current feelings for him; Griffith's current location.

all of Guts' positive thoughts (which he would base his answer off of)

Why only the positive thoughts? He seemed to be taking her current state and dislike of him in consideration the most as he was about to answer.

Um yeah, that's why within my post I clearly said they have different conotations hell you used the phrase secretive conotation which is what I just said, however they all technically mean to tell something when it all boils down to it.

Within your post you missed the point about the subtle difference between "confirm" and "admit" because you focused on the non-existent difference between "admit" and "confess" (as they are synonyms). I used the same phrase you did because I thought it'd make it easier for you to understand (plus it was my point to begin with anyway). And yeah, I guess they all mean to "tell something". No need to dwell on this.

I meant that you overplay the obviousness of their connection in the eyes of everyone else, of course they know Guts has feelings for her, however Casca in her current state doesn't reciprocate those feelings. So I think they may see this as a much more complicated thing, so like I said the way you described it it sounded like they were openly displaying affection towards one another, the only proof of a connection is Guts protecting her and that she was one of the few who traveled with him from the beginning.

I don't think I overplay it. It's all over the story. I never talked about Casca reciprocating anything so I don't know why you keep mentioning it. Sounds like another case of misrepresenting what I'm saying. In any case, Guts has been openly displaying care and affection toward her, as well as sadness regarding her rejection. It all makes it very plain to the others what he feels for her.

Now you know the average person wouldn't stop the discussion after you just basically blasted me. Its like you left me bleeding to death in the battlefield, and now you wish to stop and sign the peace treaty.

I'm a merciful person, I admit. Mostly I just want to save everyone's time as nothing that will be said from now on will be very interesting. I don't think of this as battle though, and I don't think it's reasonable that you do. It's rather childish and it doesn't seem very healthy, if you see what I mean. Not a good attitude to have. When people comment on what you say and challenge it, they're not "attacking", just pointing out things they think you should reconsider.

But if you wish to stop it now, well by all means we've had an equal number of replies to one another. But if you'd like to continue that's fine as well. I think from now on let's stay away from any kind of personal attacks

You don't think of this the right way. It doesn't matter how many posts each has made. I'll keep correcting you as long as your posts contain something I deem incorrect or inaccurate. It's as simple as that. Other than that, you should indeed refrain from personal attacks against other members, and please don't think I'm insulting you when I call your acuteness into question because I'm completely honest about it. It's important to avoid miscommunication on Internet as it happens very easily.

P.S: My name sounds pretty stupid, but I meant it to be Guts' intestines (lame pun I know), I was unable to put the apostrophe.

Yeah, I'll have to agree that it's a lame pun. But hey, to each his own. You shouldn't have a problem using an apostrophe in your username though.

 

[Walter]

Seriously? We're debating whether or not Guts finished his sentence, and essentially, whether Roderick knows about Guts and Casca's relationship? Whew, a lot is on the line in this thread. This could change EVERYTHING! We have a vast array of emoticons here. But there's not one that expresses my frustration at the hugeness of this thread. I'll be damned brief.

No, it is not "one-hundred percent proven" that Guts finished the sentence, but as always, there are context clues. They're there if you want to take them, or if you prefer to read the series in a Dragnet-style fashion, you can disregard them. "Just the facts ma'am." Miura knew that Guts reflecting on his feelings for Casca was a delicate subject, and that's probably why he omitted the line here and made the true reply a little hard to predict. But do you really think Guts would diss Casca by consigning her as simply "my responsibility"? That seems pretty disingenuine of our old lug, given all that he's gone through for her, and his personality. That's the basis of Aaz' responses, and my own feelings on the matter.

The only one mistaken about my meaning is you, obviously when you say to someone that their reasoning is flawed (which is what you said in your first reply to me) your saying that what they think is illogical.

Actually, Aaz' original sentence implies that you weren't considering all the facts and nuances of Guts' character when you made your conclusion. I don't think that's over the line. But the basis of this argument is a simple disagreement. Aaz and I feel that Guts would be honest in this scenario. You do not. End of story.

I meant that you overplay the obviousness of their connection in the eyes of everyone else, of course they know Guts has feelings for her, however Casca in her current state doesn't reciprocate those feelings.

Let's stop right here, because the rest of this section got a little too "complicated" for its own good. So, NOW you admit that "of COURSE" Guts' Band knows he and Casca are basically an item. Ok. I'm glad you came to that conclusion finally, because it was getting pretty frustrating reading earlier when you were trying to convince us otherwise.

P.S: My name sounds pretty stupid, but I meant it to be Guts' intestines (lame pun I know), I was unable to put the apostrophe.

Check out my name.

 

[Guts intestines]

That's beside the point. In any case, whether he could finish his sentence or was interrupted, he did reply to Roderick. The intent was there. He didn't tell him to "forget it" or refuse to answer.

You keep mentioning intent, all we know is that Guts was intent on answering the question, we don't know what he was intending to say, or if he even said anymore than what we saw because we never saw the actual line finished. You need to understand that having intent to reply, as well as just replying to a question is not the same as answering the question. If someone was to ask you "how's school?" and you say "I'm going tomorrow." that's a reply, but its not the same as answering the question. You say this is beside the point, but if was a hundred percent proven that he answered the question then we would have had to either see him answer it or hear the answer from Schierke or Roderick, then there would be no point to this thread because we would have known what he said. Sound relevant now?

I don't think you have a point. It was established from the first time that he could have been interrupted, by myself even. You, on the other hand, were saying he paused. I don't think this is leading anywhere. You're misrepresenting what I'm saying because your previous line of argumentation has failed.

No you just seem incapable of perceiving my point. My point was made when the first time I replied, now I'm merely defending my point from your long diatribes. I said he paused, but I meant that he paused in addition to Farnese's reaction, my exact words were there still would of been a pause regardless of Farnese's own reaction you seem to be arguing that this is not the case when there's no way you can prove that he wouldn't have paused had we been able to see him answer, which can also be speculated that he didn't answer it (although not likely). I'm not misrepresenting anything you have to say because I'm to busy trying to get you to understand my point, which you falsely believe to be nonexistent. So I ask you to read what I say more carefully.

I merely corrected you about your statements because they were being presumptuous. I didn't "take a shot" so much as made a point I thought would help you revise your views to be a little more tolerant of other alternatives. And what I said applied to the look on Roderick's face as he saw Casca endangering herself, not to anything else. You're misrepresenting what I told you again.

Who's post are you reading? When I first made my post I said nothing of anyone else's opinion my exact words were "I think Guts would have said, "She's my...responsibility." and I also believe that there still would of been a pause regardless of Farnese's own perception of the event." For one I said I think this is the case ( meaning in my opinion), then I said I believe there would have been a pause, sounds like someone merely expressing an opinion to me, there's nothing intolerant about that.

Please, don't be obtuse. I'm not mistaken about what your sentence meant, and now you're changing the subject in an attempt not to admit it. I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you're really confused, but try to understand what I'm telling you at least. And actually, when saying a reasoning is flawed it doesn't necessarily mean it's illogical. You shouldn't take shortcuts like that. A reasoning can be perfectly logical while having one or more flaws that make it invalid. But once again, that's beside the point. We're not here to discuss semantics.

I'm not changing the subject at all, you said for me not to attribute things to you that you didn't say, so I went on to try to explain to you why what you said came off like you were telling me that my thoughts were illogical. You say we're not here to argue semantics but you proceeded to do just that all of 2 lines above that. So since you tried to tell me I was wrong for taking your meaning that way and don't get my meaning I'll tell you what I meant. Any reasoning that is flawed is inherently illogical because the act of reasoning= the use of logic. Logic is all about making connections, without connections logic doesn't take place: Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illogical.

so if your saying my reasoning is flawed then that implies that I'm not making connections or that I'm making wrong/inaccurate connections. You said flaw but the word flaw can mean inaccurate or discontinous, this means that to you my reasoning wasn't based of off accurate connections meaning that I wasn't using valid inference, so I was being illogical.

Now I will never again go through this length to prove something semantically, but that's why I told you that I wasn't putting words in your mouth but that I was just going off of the meaning of what you were saying. You started this one by saying for me to not be obtuse, but you need to understand the meaning of what you say because obtuse means dimwitted, slow to perceive, as well as lacking intellectual acuity= you basically just told me not to be dumb, but by how you supported it it sounds like you meant for me not to oversimplify, so as I said be careful with what you say.

And I told you it's fine what you think. But it's just that. You keep telling me it's not sure Guts finished his sentence (something I said myself first), but on the other hand you seem convinced that Guts couldn't have said anything else than what you believe he did. And that's your mistake. Your proposition isn't more likely than the others, and that's indubitable.

Again nothing I said originally was intolerable of anything anyone else said prior to me. I said my thought on what he said, then einherjar said, "I think you underestimate Guts' depth of feeling for Casca." immediately after that all I did was support my own reasoning. Then a week after I said this you chose to say, "And the reason she assumed what he was going to say is because it's been clear to anyone and everyone, friends and strangers, that he loves her. Which kind of disproves your earlier point about him not talking about his past to Roderick (not to mention that his feelings for Casca aren't the past)." To me that sounds more intolerable about someone's opinion then anything I said.

After that instead of saying something like, "Its just my opinion" I chose to try to defend it by supporting why I thought this to be a good response, but it has always been my opinion that I try to backup with logic and reasoning, so of course if I'm trying to support my opinion with logic then in doing so I have to show why I thought this in the first place over anything else, so of course it sounds like I'm disproving other possibilities because then there would be no other way to validate my thoughts.

By going out of your way to show how my comment was disproven you showed your own intolerance to my answer, before that I said nothing about anyone else's thoughts on what Guts may have said. So did you honestly even read what I said?


I find it funny to think that you would try to say my speculation is so unlikely when your own original thought was that he said, "she's the one I protect" which is no more direct in relation to Guts' feelings for her than what I said. So what's your comment on that one? Especially since you made such a point to tell me that Guts is sooo direct that he would have just come out and said his true feelings, so like I said you keep contradicting yourself.

In truth it ranged from a midly amused smile to boredom as I plowed through it. Like most of the time when I reply to such posts.

Again with the arrogance. I don't know why you think your "plowing" through anything all your doing is saying half truths and contradictions.

I merely pointed out the error in what you said. Not much of an attack really. It wasn't even related to what you proposed to end Guts' line, just to your reasoning of why something else didn't seem likely. What else do you expect, is this not a discussion forum? Don't expect everyone to agree with everything you say, especially when you're wrong.

Well when you comment on what I said a week later out of the blue, then tell me that what I said is disproven by your own explanation then yeah it sounds like an attack to me. Now you say that it had nothing to do with what I proposed for the end of the line, but with, " your reasoning of why something else didn't seem likely" so again when did I say anything that went out of the way to show that someone else's opinion was unlikely? No, you just found it necessary to point out why my opinion didn't make sense, for no better reason then to be self-serving.

Actually, from the first time you avoided addressing what I had really said and moved on to broader or deformed subjects, most of the time being corrected until we reached this point. Which I take it stems from a refusal to admit other possibilities.

If I recall correctly I addressed what you had to say immediately: ME: What do you mean? I only meant that he wouldn't go into the heavier details of Casca and his past, nor go so far as to say some heart warming speech about the nature of his feelings for her, I think he would of said something true about their relationship, just not something overly revealing, even though it's obvious to everyone how he truly feels.

YOU: You said he'd just say she's his responsability, then justified it by telling einherjar that Guts wouldn't admit his feelings to Roderick. What I'm telling you is that since everyone has already guessed his feelings for her (which is what sparked Roderick's question in the first place, as it's honestly a bit obvious how he feels), there's no reason Guts wouldn't say something more direct. Especially since he's a relatively direct kind of guy.


I addressed you, and you contradicted your own opinion from before when you tried to tell me that he'd just come out and say his feelings. Which I think stems from you having a problem admitting your own mistakes. If you believed that from before you would have said that he'd say that he loves her, instead of she's the one I protect, which as I said isn't telling of his feelings for her.

If by "scholar" you mean "that knows a whole lot of stuff about something" then yes, I guess I am.

Nah, I meant that you think you know it all, and come off as pompous and arrogant.

Isn't it? Guts didn't seem to think so, considering how he replied to him. Because you think it's none of his business doesn't make it true. They're travelling together as companions, using Roderick's ship, to go to a fabled island just for her, so even by common standards his question wasn't out of place. Not to mention that it isn't a secret, and that Guts has never made any effort to hide his feelings for her.

Oh just I think huh? Well let's look at your "explanation" of why it is his business. First of all you actually bothered to point out that their using Roderick's ship to go to Elfhelm as if it is such a generous act, when he's really doing this in order to impress Farnese. Then you use the weak argument that because its not a secret that that means its okay, just because your pretty sure about someone's relationship with another doesn't necessarily make it any more right to ask, two people's relationship is their business. Plus if it was so obvious why would Roderick ask in the first place?

As I said before its not like they show any open affection to one another, all Guts does is go out of his way to protect her, as far as we know Roderick could think that he's her brother that would explain him trying to protect her.

Well now that just isn't true. Casca fears him and at best dislikes him, while he still loves her. It's a complicated relationship but it's there.

You have got to be purposefully misinterpreting what I'm saying when I said relationship, I meant a relationship in the sense of between boyfriend and girlfriend. When it comes to this they don't have an existing relationship currently because it is so complicated (which I said earlier).

I see it, it's just not that coherent. Answering a simple question isn't the same as spilling his guts. Simplifying everything won't work here.

It only seems incoherent because your too obstinate to listen. The fact is that its not a simple question because it requires Guts to have to think about not only what Casca was to him, which in itself was complicated because they argued, fought together as comrades, as well as became lovers, but also its harder to grasp their relationship because of how she is now, like I said he loves for who she was.

But you were wrong about it, as I explained you.

You have yet to prove to me how his past isn't a painful issue for him, I don't think you can anyway because it's a major theme of the story. And as I have said there are no two people as important to his past and present as Griffith and Casca, period.

Yeah, they sure are.

Prove it.

That's your opinion, which isn't grounded on anything solid. There are way too many possibilities here for your appreciation of Guts' character (which is in all honesty not nearly as good as you think) to matter much.

Just as your flip flopped opinion about him saying something direct is just that: your opinion.

Oh I understand perfectly well, but it's just preposterous. I'm not arguing he'd have answered if he had had more time, because he did answer anyway. He didn't avoid anything. He answered the question, only cutting the presentations and the discussion short. He was truthful, and there was no need to propose to talk about it at a very improbable later time. Actually, what you're proposing here would definitely have been out of character for him, funnily enough. A blatant example of bad faith on your part.

How you can try to dance around the very likely possibility that he was deflecting the conversation in order to avoid going into detail about his past is beyond me, and I'm tired of rehashing the many examples of how he doesn't like talking about his past, so your obviously doing this in order to argue, otherwise seriously why would you even argue this when you admitted that his past was an issue for him, so of course he shows this when the past is brought up. Here's one I didn't say, like how he avoided telling Rickert what happened to the other Hawks until it was unavoidable now why would he do this, what because he was sparing his feelings?

That's not what you said.

I'll handle this in the next part where you go into detail

That's not what you said. To be "nearly completely in the dark" doesn't merely mean that they don't know the intimate details of when they had a battle water naked once. You should express yourself better if your point changes with every post you make.

For one I said "nearly" because as it stands the person who knows the most is Schierke and she just really knows that Griffith branded Guts and she knows the prophecy as well as Griffith being the center of it, and everyone else knows even less. I said intimate because that's the meat of what they don't know which is basically Guts and Griffith's connection to one another. What they know isn't even half the story, so they are nearly in the dark.

You should listen to your own advice when you contradict yourself from one post to the next.

No, I told you they know about Griffith, as well as the fact that Guts and him have a connection.

Oh, please they don't even know Guts was a part of the band of the Hawk, as demonstrated when Isidro asked him what mercenary band he came from, and that's what makes Griffith famous is that he was the legendary leader of the band. What everyone else knows of their connection is only from the couple of times his name was mentioned, such as when Farnese said something like didn't I hear that name before?

Wrong. Even Farnese was reminded of Griffith in Albion when Guts asked Zodd about him as they were about to leave Vritannis. They all have more or less of a clue, although they indeed do not know the intimate details of their former relationship. But then again, that's not what we were talking about at all.

So let me get this straight based off Farnese seeing Griffith's incarnation and hearing the name mentioned you believe that she's in the know when it comes to what's happening? Please. As I said she only made a connection based off of hearing his name mentioned by Guts a couple of times. There is nothing in the manga that tells us that she, Isidro and Serpico even know who gave Guts that brand, or even that Griffith was the one they should have been originally looking for instead of the Blackswordsman in reference to their Knights of the Holy Iron Chain days. All they know is that Guts and Griffith know each other that's it.

Well his only goal currently is to heal Casca, so there's nothing else for them to believe. That's the reason they've been journeying in the first place. And they've all seen how he feels about Griffith, even though they don't know the details of the past. That's the key here: that knowledge of the past isn't necessary to understands the simplest aspects of the present. Guts' love for Casca needs no immediate explanation; he loves her and that's it.

No, that's why Guts is journeying not why they chose to journey with him. Isidro wanted to be a great swordsman, Schierke's destiny was to help him and she couldn't go back to the mansion. Farnese wanted to better understand the world through him, and Serpico follows her.

I don't miss the point, it's just unrelated to the present matter.

I've repeated myself too many times, if you don't see the whole theme of past pain and events affecting the future/present well what can I say.

Hahaha, but Guts did answer Owen's only question, in his usual blunt way. Despite his painful past. And while Owen talked of the past, his actual question was grounded in the present. So you're wrong here.

He answered only in the sense that he responded in a truthful way with no details whatsoever.

Uhh, the Beast of Darkness first appeared in volume 16, before that the character didn't exist. So yeah, we sure didn't see it before the Occultation, or even during it, or anytime before episode 118. And since we're talking neither about the future or the past but the present, the Beast of Darkness is indeed not becoming more prominent at the moment.

The character hadn't been shown, whether he existed the entire time as a part of his subconscious is yet to be seen, that's why I said we never saw him until after the eclipse.

He did avoid the question. You know, I suggest you actually read that part again carefully instead of embarrassing yourself again and again. As for looking upset, it only denotes his hatred of Griffith. Lastly, saying it was a long time ago is merely the truth. I can't even think of a better way to put it. You really should stop insisting on all this because you'll never get out of the hole you've dug yourself in.

I'm assuming you meant "He didn't avoid the question, otherwise your reallying contradicting yourself. And I'll keep insisting on this and really question why it's so hard for you to see. You have to look at his motivation for answering the way he did, not just because he was out of time.

And your right it is merely the truth but he purposefully left it blunt, he didn't even say anything like, "It was a long time ago and I despise him." That would have taken no more of his time and it would have been equally as blunt, however it would have lead into a follow up question, such as why do you despise him? Which as I keep mentioning Guts doesn't like talking about the past simple.

No, I only said they know about him, as opposed to you saying they were completely in the dark. Again, you need to learn how to express yourself properly, as well as to be able to read the nuances in what people tell you.

No the first thing you said was, "They all know quite a bit about him and his life. Including about Griffith." So to me quite a bit means a lot and I'm saying they know little to nothing so what were you saying about nuances?

Not necessarily. Griffith is the present as much as the past for Guts, just like Casca is. And he didn't reminisce before answering Owen's question.

Well, they're not dead so of course they play a major part in Guts' present as well as future. However, the involvement with him in the past is what influences him the most. Griffith betrayed Guts in the past so he wants revenge, and Casca was his lover as well as a much different person in the past so he wants her back.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

But that were completely grounded in the present. Guts' current feeling for Casca and her current feelings for him; Griffith's current location.

Yeah and Guts' feelings for her all originated in the past, why Owen assumed Guts would know where Griffith is, is because of their past.

Why only the positive thoughts? He seemed to be taking her current state and dislike of him in consideration the most as he was about to answer.

I said his answer would be based off the the positive memories/feelings, we know he loves her so of course his answer would reflect the positive.

I'm a merciful person, I admit. Mostly I just want to save everyone's time as nothing that will be said from now on will be very interesting. I don't think of this as battle though, and I don't think it's reasonable that you do. It's rather childish and it doesn't seem very healthy, if you see what I mean. Not a good attitude to have. When people comment on what you say and challenge it, they're not "attacking", just pointing out things they think you should reconsider.

When your in a position to grant mercy then do so, otherwise your not in such a superior position. Why are you being so literal, you also didn't leave me bleeding to death either, so obviously I don't think it is truly a battle, so I'm not going to dignify your little psycho analysis.

You don't think of this the right way. It doesn't matter how many posts each has made. I'll keep correcting you as long as your posts contain something I deem incorrect or inaccurate. It's as simple as that. Other than that, you should indeed refrain from personal attacks against other members, and please don't think I'm insulting you when I call your acuteness into question because I'm completely honest about it. It's important to avoid miscommunication on Internet as it happens very easily.

I meant that we each had an equal opportunity to present our case (before you say it f.y.i I don't think we're in court.) so that was as good a time as any to stop, but as long as you post what you deem to be incorrect/inaccurate with me, I'll post why I disagree because I think about what I say before I post it, so when you say there's something wrong I have the right to defend it.

Yeah, I'll have to agree that it's a lame pun. But hey, to each his own. You shouldn't have a problem using an apostrophe in your username though.

It said something like invalid symbol and I tried it a few times, but I'll go and edit it.

 

[Lithrael]

Oh the internets, oh the dramas.

Intestines, dear, pls not to be defining logic and its etymology while you present your position, it makes it look like you love to hear yourself type. Aaz does go on a bit but he's not hostile, and generally not wrongheaded.

The 'she's the one I protect' type of line has been a theme in Berserk since Skully mused about the couple way back when, that's why there's some weight behind that guess.

 

[KazigluBey]

I'd hope for a discussion this lengthy if it revolved around the origin of God Hand member's or Skullnight's past, but completing a line with a single word? Give it a rest Guts intestines.

BTW: It's breath not breathe.

 

[Rhombaad]

Like Lith says, Guts' intestines, Aaz isn't trying to be mean by pointing out the flaws he sees in your hypotheses.  If anything, he's trying to get you to understand more about the manga, since he does know quite a bit.

 

[Guts intestines]

Intestines, dear, pls not to be defining logic and its etymology while you present your position, it makes it look like you love to hear yourself type. Aaz does go on a bit but he's not hostile, and generally not wrongheaded.

Don't know about that, between the carpal tunnel and my eyes bleeding like a Beherit from staring at the monitor so long, I'd say I wanted to stop, (which is why I said I'd never do that again) sometimes its hard to withdraw when it comes to proving a point.

The 'she's the one I protect' type of line has been a theme in Berserk since Skully mused about the couple way back when, that's why there's some weight behind that guess.

It still doesn't make it anymore right (or wrong) then "she's my responsibility", that was my point. He said I was being unresponsive to the nuances of what others were saying, but the fact is I never said anything about anyone else's opinion within my first post, anyone who reads it would be able to see that. I only brought up "she's the one I protect" because he made a case that Guts would say something direct, but by having this as his speculative phrase says the opposite of what he suggested, he could have said she's my lover or she's my woman and he'd of been more consistent.


I'd hope for a discussion this lengthy if it revolved around the origin of God Hand member's or Skullnight's past, but completing a line with a single word? Give it a rest Guts intestines.

All I can say is it takes two to tango and two to argue, I wasn't posting to blank space. But yeah for me, consider it dropped. Nothing personal Aaz, I was just pissed, I know you know your stuff but as I said I felt a little attacked out of the blue.

BTW: It's breath not breathe.

Right now I'm as sensitive as a hair pin trigger, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it (because I'd seem pretty crazy) all I'll say is that I noticed that when I went to go change my profile from Guts intestines to Guts' intestines, but I can't remember my password and my safety question isn't working, so I'm stuck with Guts intestines and breathe instead of breath, DAMMIT !

 

[Walter]

Right now I'm as sensitive as a hair pin trigger, but I'm not going to make a big deal about it (because I'd seem pretty crazy) all I'll say is that I noticed that when I went to go change my profile from Guts intestines to Guts' intestines, but I can't remember my password and my safety question isn't working, so I'm stuck with Guts intestines and breathe instead of breath, DAMMIT !

In thanks for ignoring the post I made to try and mediate the situation, I've fixed your name and custom message for you. You're welcome.

 

[Guts intestines]

Thanks, I'm sorry I just didn't notice the message till after I posted mine.

 

[Xem]

Off topic

I just finished playing through the game a week ago, and he definitely does not say anything.

Yeah, it's pretty much a staple of the series.

Well I'll be darned, I haven't played the game in probably around 7-8 years so I definitely take you're word for it. Got that bit of information from zelda.wikia.com, so some fanboy probably just made it up for fun.

My friend tells me he actually does speak in Wind Waker though. He says that Link clearly yell's "Come on!" when he's escorting someone.

I'd also throw in the cartoon series, but I'm not even certain Nintendo had anything to do with that. At least I hope not.


So throwing that one out, I'm going to go with Guts never finishes the line, nor did he have a clear idea of what she is to him anymore. More than likely, Roderick simply made him think about that. Is she his leash? His burdon? His love? His motivation? Probably all of the above and plenty more.

 

[Ramen4ever]

I'd also throw in the cartoon series, but I'm not even certain Nintendo had anything to do with that. At least I hope not.

There's nothing really new to contribute to the topic anyway. I'll go OT as well,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3-FB_qX5I
Heavily edited.

 

[Xem]

There's nothing really new to contribute to the topic anyway. I'll go OT as well,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3-FB_qX5I
Heavily edited.

That nearly had me in tears, try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-b1r_OThnQ&feature=related
Not quite as funny but it illustrates pretty well why I hope Nintendo had nothing to do with the creation.

 

[Guts intestines]

So throwing that one out, I'm going to go with Guts never finishes the line, nor did he have a clear idea of what she is to him anymore. More than likely, Roderick simply made him think about that. Is she his leash? His burdon? His love? His motivation? Probably all of the above and plenty more.

I can agree with that as a possibility.

 

[Aazealh]

Well, thanks guys for intervening, it's nice to know other people's take during arguments. I wish it happened more often, maybe that'd help solve things faster. Anyway, just when you thought the giant posts were over...

You keep mentioning intent, all we know is that Guts was intent on answering the question

Which was the point of that part of my post. Glad you're finally accepting this.

You need to understand that having intent to reply, as well as just replying to a question is not the same as answering the question.

That depends on the context in which you use the word answer.

No you just seem incapable of perceiving my point. My point was made when the first time I replied, now I'm merely defending my point from your long diatribes.

Like I said, you have no point. And I think you need to revise your definition of the words "long" and "diatribe". This line isn't a "long diatribe": "And the reason she assumed what he was going to say is because it's been clear to anyone and everyone, friends and strangers, that he loves her. Which kind of disproves your earlier point about him not talking about his past to Roderick (not to mention that his feelings for Casca aren't the past)."

And I find it ironical to hear that considering how you've been lengthening the conversation. You're not very concise, you know.

I said he paused, but I meant that he paused in addition to Farnese's reaction, my exact words were there still would of been a pause regardless of Farnese's own reaction you seem to be arguing that this is not the case when there's no way you can prove that he wouldn't have paused had we been able to see him answer, which can also be speculated that he didn't answer it (although not likely).

You seem to be mistaken. The burden of proof that Guts would have paused isn't on me, as nothing in the scene hints at a pause in the slightest, but on you. You're basically speculating that he paused without any good reason to. And since you agree that it is unlikely that he didn't answer, then you must also agree that it is even more unlikely that he paused as he was about to speak, especially considering the fact he thought about what he was going to say before speaking.

Who's post are you reading? When I first made my post

I didn't respond to the post you first made, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. It was never the point.

I'm not changing the subject at all, you said for me not to attribute things to you that you didn't say, so I went on to try to explain to you why what you said came off like you were telling me that my thoughts were illogical.

You just didn't want to recognize that your sentence was either incorrectly formulated or just wrong. Then you tried to argue about semantics and you were wrong about it. I just informed you of it. But it's gone beyond that now, it's just a plain wrong use of words.

Any reasoning that is flawed is inherently illogical because the act of reasoning= the use of logic.

Sorry, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. The first line of that Wikipedia article should have helped you realize it. You know, I don't mean to offend you, but for someone with less than stellar spelling and grammar, you're surprisingly intent on disputing the meaning of words.

You said flaw but the word flaw can mean inaccurate or discontinous

Actually, that's not part of its formal definitions.

Now I will never again go through this length to prove something semantically, but that's why I told you that I wasn't putting words in your mouth but that I was just going off of the meaning of what you were saying.

But I was talking about your previous line anyway, not this petty semantics joke. You know, the line where you said I couldn't tell you that Guts wouldn't express his feelings about Casca. All I did is point out that I hadn't told you so, but rather was championing the opposite idea. I don't know why you're mixing up those two arguments, but it's fruitless.

You started this one by saying for me to not be obtuse, but you need to understand the meaning of what you say because obtuse means dimwitted, slow to perceive, as well as lacking intellectual acuity= you basically just told me not to be dumb

Yes, I know what "obtuse" means, thank you.

but by how you supported it it sounds like you meant for me not to oversimplify, so as I said be careful with what you say.

No, I just meant for you not to be obtuse. I also think you shouldn't oversimplify things though, but then again I suspect you do it in bad faith, in order to avoid having to back down.

Again nothing I said originally was intolerable of anything anyone else said prior to me.

But afterwards it did sound like that at times.

Then a week after I said this you chose to say, "And the reason she assumed what he was going to say is because it's been clear to anyone and everyone, friends and strangers, that he loves her. Which kind of disproves your earlier point about him not talking about his past to Roderick (not to mention that his feelings for Casca aren't the past)." To me that sounds more intolerable about someone's opinion then anything I said.

How so? I just pointed out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

After that instead of saying something like, "Its just my opinion" I chose to try to defend it by supporting why I thought this to be a good response

Well in the first place, your argument that Farnese assumed Guts was going to say something intimate but that he didn't has no basis. It fails to take into account the whole context and mise en scène of the episode, as well as the fact that Farnese does know Guts, his personality, and his feelings for Casca. That's all I wanted to point out. I didn't say anything about how you think the line should end, you're the one who brought it up and mixed everything together. Which is why, among other things, I mentioned that you misrepresented what I said and changed the subject several times during the discussion.

it has always been my opinion that I try to backup with logic and reasoning, so of course if I'm trying to support my opinion with logic then in doing so I have to show why I thought this in the first place over anything else, so of course it sounds like I'm disproving other possibilities because then there would be no other way to validate my thoughts.

I think it's possible to support an idea without necessarily making it sound like no other ideas are possible.

By going out of your way to show how my comment was disproven you showed your own intolerance to my answer

Don't be ridiculous. First, I didn't go out of my way, and second, I merely pointed out that your argument was contradictory. Your tries to turn what I say back against me can't work because we haven't been talking about the same things to begin with. As it stands, it just sounds like you're blowing my remark out of proportions.

I find it funny to think that you would try to say my speculation is so unlikely when your own original thought was that he said, "she's the one I protect" which is no more direct in relation to Guts' feelings for her than what I said. So what's your comment on that one? Especially since you made such a point to tell me that Guts is sooo direct that he would have just come out and said his true feelings, so like I said you keep contradicting yourself.

Hahaha, you're the funny one here I think. =) Lithrael already commented on that line and why it's got some weight behind it, but anyway it wasn't my original thought, it's just what I posted, taken from the list in the opening post. Ah and don't misrepresent what I said about what's likely or not please (or for that matter about Guts being direct and the fact his companions know of his feelings for Casca). There's only a contradiction in your mind, because you're mixing everything I've said together.

Again with the arrogance. I don't know why you think your "plowing" through anything all your doing is saying half truths and contradictions.

And what's so arrogant about it? I just answered your question truthfully and directly, like Guts would have.

Well when you comment on what I said a week later out of the blue, then tell me that what I said is disproven by your own explanation then yeah it sounds like an attack to me.

Out of the blue, uh? Do you want me to send you an email next time I reply to one of your posts, so you can prepare yourself for the shock? And what does it matter that it was a week later? I sometimes reply to posts that are months old. Is there some new rule on this forum you've invented that I'm not aware of? I just don't see how that makes my post an attack.

Now you say that it had nothing to do with what I proposed for the end of the line, but with, " your reasoning of why something else didn't seem likely" so again when did I say anything that went out of the way to show that someone else's opinion was unlikely? No, you just found it necessary to point out why my opinion didn't make sense, for no better reason then to be self-serving.

You really shouldn't make an amalgam of different points in order to better reply to them unless you're sure other people won't notice it. Indeed, my original reply to what you said about Farnese has nothing to do with what you proposed for the end of the line. As for going out of one's way, I don't see the point here. I myself replied to four people at once, so where's the relevance? You're still caught in that logic of fighting one another. And about being self-serving, you couldn't be further from the truth. If I were self-serving I'd just go on my merry way without caring about random folks being mistaken. It's not like what I do here is very rewarding.

If I recall correctly I addressed what you had to say immediately: ME: What do you mean? I only meant that he wouldn't go into the heavier details of Casca and his past, nor go so far as to say some heart warming speech about the nature of his feelings for her, I think he would of said something true about their relationship, just not something overly revealing, even though it's obvious to everyone how he truly feels.

YOU: You said he'd just say she's his responsability, then justified it by telling einherjar that Guts wouldn't admit his feelings to Roderick. What I'm telling you is that since everyone has already guessed his feelings for her (which is what sparked Roderick's question in the first place, as it's honestly a bit obvious how he feels), there's no reason Guts wouldn't say something more direct. Especially since he's a relatively direct kind of guy.

Alright, so read your reply again. You're talking about "heavier details of Casca and his past" and a "heart warming speech". Right there, that's moving on to a broader and deformed subject. Like my own response suggested, that just wasn't the point at all. Nobody ever thought he'd make a heart warming speech, or go into heavy details about his past. And why would he? That's not what the scene suggests at all. Roderick asked him if she was his girlfriend, and Guts' reply started with "she's my". That suggests a short, simple, direct answer. Not a long speech about his life.

So again, like I said, from the beginning you changed the subject and avoided directly replying to what I said.

I addressed you, and you contradicted your own opinion from before when you tried to tell me that he'd just come out and say his feelings.

Whoa, I think you've really got a comprehension problem here. It's mindboggling. I really didn't contradict myself at all. Please, ask other people to explain it to you if it has to come down to that because I'm at a loss at your reactions.

Which I think stems from you having a problem admitting your own mistakes. If you believed that from before you would have said that he'd say that he loves her, instead of she's the one I protect, which as I said isn't telling of his feelings for her.

Like I already said, trying to turn back what I say against me isn't going to work, especially when it's so crudely done. As for what I believe he said, I'm open to a lot of possibilities.

Nah, I meant that you think you know it all, and come off as pompous and arrogant.

I guess you don't know the meaning of "scholar" then?

Oh just I think huh? Well let's look at your "explanation" of why it is his business.

What explanation? There's no need for an explanation at all. You're saying it's not Roderick's business like you have any sort of authority on the question, while Guts himself clearly accepted his inquiry as being natural. It's just a ridiculous example of stubborn bad faith on your part. All I did was to point out that Roderick isn't exactly a stranger, something you've said a few times. And that there's no basis for saying that it's none of his business.

Plus if it was so obvious why would Roderick ask in the first place?

To get a confirmation?

As I said before its not like they show any open affection to one another, all Guts does is go out of his way to protect her, as far as we know Roderick could think that he's her brother that would explain him trying to protect her.

Guts shows affection for her. He's not hugging her and covering her in kisses, but always looking out for her, caring about her, etc. And now you're saying Roderick could think they're brother and sister? Are you serious? Because it's getting pathetic. And even putting aside the absurdity of your suggestion, Roderick asked if she was his girlfriend anyway.

You have got to be purposefully misinterpreting what I'm saying when I said relationship, I meant a relationship in the sense of between boyfriend and girlfriend. When it comes to this they don't have an existing relationship currently because it is so complicated (which I said earlier).

You're just not using proper language, don't blame it on me. They don't have a romantic relationship currently, but that's not because their relationship is complicated, it's because Casca is mentally ill.

It only seems incoherent because your too obstinate to listen. The fact is that its not a simple question because it requires Guts to have to think about not only what Casca was to him, which in itself was complicated because they argued, fought together as comrades, as well as became lovers, but also its harder to grasp their relationship because of how she is now, like I said he loves for who she was.

I fail to see how this changes the fact that your previous point wasn't coherent. You didn't address it at all here, and instead replied about something else. And whether it's a simple question or not, he did reply, just like he replied to Owen.

You have yet to prove to me how his past isn't a painful issue for him

Yes, I have yet to prove it because I never said so. Yet one more instance of misrepresenting what I said.

Prove it.

Already done, check my former posts.

Just as your flip flopped opinion about him saying something direct is just that: your opinion.

Only my opinions, which aren't "flip-flopped", also happen to be based on concrete story elements, unlike yours in this case.

How you can try to dance around the very likely possibility that he was deflecting the conversation in order to avoid going into detail about his past is beyond me, and I'm tired of rehashing the many examples of how he doesn't like talking about his past, so your obviously doing this in order to argue, otherwise seriously why would you even argue this when you admitted that his past was an issue for him, so of course he shows this when the past is brought up.

That's a lot of words to say nothing. Guts did answer Owen's question. That's all. He didn't deflect the conversation, he just cut it short. You can rehash whatever you want, but it'll never change the facts we can find in the manga.

Here's one I didn't say, like how he avoided telling Rickert what happened to the other Hawks until it was unavoidable now why would he do this, what because he was sparing his feelings?

Well of course it was to spare his feelings. Look at Rickert's reaction when he learned what had happened. Rather, I'd say it was an effort on Guts' part not to tell him at that time, right after the Occultation had occurred.

For one I said "nearly" because as it stands the person who knows the most is Schierke and she just really knows that Griffith branded Guts and she knows the prophecy as well as Griffith being the center of it, and everyone else knows even less.

I'd say Puck knows more when it comes to the relation with Guts. Also, Schierke has been in Guts' mind in volume 27, and has seen the bubbles of light showing Guts' memories, many containing images of Casca and Griffith. Besides, you're I think underestimating the importance of what she knows. You think being branded doesn't imply anything as to what their relationship was before? Then there's the fact Serpico and Isidro know of the Band of the Falcon's former achievements, though they haven't linked Guts to it yet. However, when they talked about it in Vritannis, Farnese remembered Guts speaking his name when he saw him incarnated in Albion. Just like she remembered Zodd from before as they were about to sail out. There are plenty more occurrences like this one that make it clear they're all just short of guessing the whole story.

Oh, please they don't even know Guts was a part of the band of the Hawk

But they know about Griffith, like I said. They know he was the leader of the Band of the Falcon. That he still is. And they've heard Guts ask Zodd if Griffith was coming to Vritannis, and seen him get real angry about it. Just like Schierke's seen him almost lose it to the armor when the word "falcon" was pronounced on the beach. Nitpicking on what they don't know won't lead you anywhere because you originally said they were "in the blank" about Griffith, and I've since merely been telling you they know about him to a certain extent.

So let me get this straight based off Farnese seeing Griffith's incarnation and hearing the name mentioned you believe that she's in the know when it comes to what's happening?

Well, she can know the two are connected. After that it depends what being "in the know" means to you. If you didn't keep using such vague expressions and were a little more accurate when describing what they know or not maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.

All they know is that Guts and Griffith know each other that's it.

Ok, this was more or less my point so thanks for admitting it. Of course they know more than that about him, but I won't come back on it.

No, that's why Guts is journeying not why they chose to journey with him.

That's the reason they're on a journey to begin with. They as a group, starting with only Guts, Puck and Casca, and more people being added to the group as time went by. Otherwise they wouldn't be travelling to Elfhelm. And the only reason they could join Guts is because it was too hard for him to take care of Casca alone. Without her, they wouldn't all be together.

I've repeated myself too many times, if you don't see the whole theme of past pain and events affecting the future/present well what can I say.

Well you can repeat things that are unrelated to the matter at hand all you want, then attribute a point to me in regard to it, but in the end it doesn't change anything.

He answered only in the sense that he responded in a truthful way with no details whatsoever.

No details were asked or needed. He answered in every possibly sense you can find, and in doing so was truthful to his character. You can't twist this one.

The character hadn't been shown, whether he existed the entire time as a part of his subconscious is yet to be seen, that's why I said we never saw him until after the eclipse.

No, it hasn't "yet to be seen". It just didn't exist.

And I'll keep insisting on this and really question why it's so hard for you to see. You have to look at his motivation for answering the way he did, not just because he was out of time.

The way he answered? What's so special about it again? Because you were only saying he didn't answer at first.

And your right it is merely the truth but he purposefully left it blunt

Well he's usually blunt you know. Not a very polite, etiquette-minding kind of guy.

he didn't even say anything like, "It was a long time ago and I despise him." That would have taken no more of his time and it would have been equally as blunt, however it would have lead into a follow up question, such as why do you despise him?

Doesn't really sound like something he'd say. Anyway, he didn't have time to talk, so clearly, a follow-up question was not what he wanted. That's why he cut the conversation short in the first place.

No the first thing you said was, "They all know quite a bit about him and his life. Including about Griffith." So to me quite a bit means a lot and I'm saying they know little to nothing so what were you saying about nuances?

Well they know more than little to nothing, and what I was saying about nuances is that you need to pay more attention to them.

Well, they're not dead so of course they play a major part in Guts' present as well as future.

Yes, and like I said he didn't reminisce before answering Owen's question.

No it isn't.

Ahhh, so now you think you can decide what can be debated or not. A nice example of humility as opposed to my arrogance here.

Yeah and Guts' feelings for her all originated in the past, why Owen assumed Guts would know where Griffith is, is because of their past.

But the questions were completely grounded in the present. Guts' current feeling for Casca and her current feelings for him; Griffith's current location.

I said his answer would be based off the the positive memories/feelings, we know he loves her so of course his answer would reflect the positive.

Yeah, like being his responsability, that's the most positive thing that's come out of their relationship.

When your in a position to grant mercy then do so, otherwise your not in such a superior position.

Hmm what? Just nitpicking, but I'm in a superior position whether I actually grant mercy or not. I can pretty much do whatever I want here.

Don't know about that, between the carpal tunnel and my eyes bleeding like a Beherit from staring at the monitor so long, I'd say I wanted to stop, (which is why I said I'd never do that again) sometimes its hard to withdraw when it comes to proving a point.

That's true, and it's understandable. But you know, it's also possible to come to an agreement of principles when both parties aren't desirious of a giant, endless discussion. Taking an example, when I say "the group knows about Griffith to some extent" and you say "they don't know the whole story about him", then we're basically saying the same thing. It's a case of a half-full/half-empty glass. When people are basing themselves on the same facts, it's usually what discussions tend to end up being like. It then becomes easy to agree with each other, but the danger is to see any response as a biting retort, then regardless of the objective meaning of what's said, it's perceived as overly disagreeing and therefore wrong. It's something easy to do with me, because I often post to nuance and soften what people say.

I only brought up "she's the one I protect" because he made a case that Guts would say something direct

Not that he would, only that he could. I didn't say anything as definitive as "because of the way Casca is now, anything asked about her is too painful for him to answer in a direct fashion".

All I can say is it takes two to tango and two to argue, I wasn't posting to blank space. But yeah for me, consider it dropped. Nothing personal Aaz, I was just pissed, I know you know your stuff but as I said I felt a little attacked out of the blue.

It's alright, I never have anything personal against anyone really. No ill feelings on my side. I think it's wise to drop the issue (saves everyone's time really), and because I just made a big reply to you (yes, I am a persistent man), I'm willing to summarize the discussion as being mostly a semantical argument about how to express the nuanced feelings of Guts. Whatever anyone says, that scene on the ship is delicate to analyze because of the complexity of Guts' emotions, so at the end of the day I think we can all agree that it's open to interpretation and to a lot of different possible answers. And let me repeat that I don't think "responsability" is a bad proposition.

Anyway, I hope you're prepared to get responses from me in other threads in the future, because it's just going to happen and I hope we won't have big arguments everytime.

So throwing that one out, I'm going to go with Guts never finishes the line, nor did he have a clear idea of what she is to him anymore. More than likely, Roderick simply made him think about that. Is she his leash? His burdon? His love? His motivation? Probably all of the above and plenty more.

Hmm, I don't know about him not finishing the line. One of my earlier points to our friend intestines was that Guts is usually direct in his speech, which makes me think that if he wasn't sure anymore, he'd simply say so. You know what I mean? But of course, there's no way to be sure without actually seeing the line... At least I hope we do see it in a flashback one of these days!

 

[Guts intestines]

Alright, so read your reply again. You're talking about "heavier details of Casca and his past" and a "heart warming speech". Right there, that's moving on to a broader and deformed subject. Like my own response suggested, that just wasn't the point at all. Nobody ever thought he'd make a heart warming speech, or go into heavy details about his past. And why would he? That's not what the scene suggests at all. Roderick asked him if she was his girlfriend, and Guts' reply started with "she's my". That suggests a short, simple, direct answer. Not a long speech about his life.

So again, like I said, from the beginning you changed the subject and avoided directly replying to what I said.

That's all, that's what this argument started from? No, no don't worry, I'm not about to start beating this dead horse again in an attempt to revive this argument.

To answer what you brought up I'll tell you that I mentioned those things not in reference to the "she's my..." line but in reference to what kinds of things would have been said later. When I said the Guts wouldn't discuss the heavier details of his relationship with Casca, as well as a heart warming speech I was trying to explain why I didn't think he'd say something more revealing like she's my love or something like that because it would cause a follow-up question. From what I can tell you thought I was saying the line in and of itself would become the above things, well I had thought that whatever Guts and Roderick discussed after he completed his line (if he completed it) would stem from whatever Guts said.

So if Guts said she's my... love. Roderick might have asked something about their relationship, which would then seem like an opening for one of those cliched, heart warming speech type moments. I just couldn't imagine their conversation ending with the completion of that line, so I saw that line as the beginning of a conversation about Guts and Casca's relationship , so I thought whatever Guts said at the end of that line would influence what Roderick said next.
So basically I was just thinking of them like realistic people, and if Roderick is like a realistic person if he heard something like she's my... love and thought the state she's in as well how they don't show affection to one another, he would probably curious about what's going on. So he would question it. The question he'd ask would be designed to get a better understanding of their relationship, in order to get that he'd have to understand how things were before her she became mentally ill, maybe even leading into how she became like this. So within this larger conversation, I figured that if Guts said something that showed more of his emotions it would lead to a larger conversation possibly with Roderick slowly prying into more of Guts' past with his questions.

This would seem to be a lot of supposition on my part, well the thing is we can't really rule anything out because we don't know how long that interval of time between Guts completing "she's my..." up until the scene in which we see them again with Guts saving Casca from drowning. So if that time frame was many minutes long, whatever Guts said to complete the line could've lead into a larger conversation and still would have fit into the time frame. That's just one of the quirks of the few occasions in which the author of something makes the fourth wall of his writing solid so that the audience doesn't know exactly what may or may have gone on, even if it was only for a little while.

Since nobody had made anything out of what I said, and so when I said those things I wasn't thinking about what I said being viewed as me putting words in the mouth of anybody who posted on the thread earlier. So when you said that what I said was disproven, it seemed like to me that you were saying my ending for the line was disproven, combined with what I said earlier is why it came off as an attack. Big misunderstanding.

That's it. And for the next time we argue (and I'm sure there'll be plenty more) let's move it to something like shootin' the breeze so that others don't have to deal with our dissertation lengthed posts, okay? That way we can bust out all the semantics, dictionaries, encyclopedias or whatever's needed to win the argument.

But for now let's just smoke the old peace pipe.

 

[Aazealh]

That's all, that's what this argument started from?

Well, yeah. =)

To answer what you brought up I'll tell you that I mentioned those things not in reference to the "she's my..." line but in reference to what kinds of things would have been said later. When I said the Guts wouldn't discuss the heavier details of his relationship with Casca, as well as a heart warming speech I was trying to explain why I didn't think he'd say something more revealing like she's my love or something like that because it would cause a follow-up question.

Ah. You should have specified it then, because that's definitely not what it sounded like. No one could have guessed you were referring to a hypothetic follow-up to Guts' answer. No big deal though.

So if Guts said she's my... love. Roderick might have asked something about their relationship, which would then seem like an opening for one of those cliched, heart warming speech type moments. I just couldn't imagine their conversation ending with the completion of that line, so I saw that line as the beginning of a conversation about Guts and Casca's relationship , so I thought whatever Guts said at the end of that line would influence what Roderick said next.

Hmm, I don't know. There's no real way to know how the conversation would have moved on from there, so it's purely speculative. Following that idea though, I imagine that Roderick would have asked what Guts meant whatever the answer had been, more so if it had been obscure in fact. In any case, I don't think Guts would have launched into a long speech about his past life and such. And I believe Roderick would have had enough finesse and consideration not to press the issue too much as well. Hopefully we'll get to see it someday so we can put all those questions to rest.

This would seem to be a lot of supposition on my part, well the thing is we can't really rule anything out because we don't know how long that interval of time between Guts completing "she's my..." up until the scene in which we see them again with Guts saving Casca from drowning.

We can't know precisely, but seeing the evolution of the scene, it's likely it wasn't more than a couple minutes at max IMHO.

And for the next time we argue (and I'm sure there'll be plenty more) let's move it to something like shootin' the breeze so that others don't have to deal with our dissertation lengthed posts, okay? That way we can bust out all the semantics, dictionaries, encyclopedias or whatever's needed to win the argument.

No, Shootin' the Breeze is not a place for arguments about Berserk matters to take place in. Rather, next time let's give every post and response careful thought to avoid misunderstandings and prevent arguments from degenerating into useless nitpicking about the meaning of words. The goal of a discussion shouldn't be to win or lose but to further everyone's understanding of the manga.

 

[Guts intestines]

I was just kidding Aaz, you're certainly a serious one, aren't you?

 

[Aazealh]

I was just kidding Aaz, you're certainly a serious one, aren't you?

When it comes to Berserk? Certainly, yes.