The confirmation bias is on your part, when you look at something in an attempt to prove what you already believe. And no, not everything is open to personal interpretation in the story. In fact there are a lot of things in Berserk that are very clearly established.
The things that are clearly established are those that were written about (whether in the manga or outside the manga) or spoken about by Miura, himself. Nothing more, nothing less.
Miura does
not say or explicitly spell out anywhere that the Beast is not a wolf.
You seem to be mistaken regarding where the burden of proof lies. The Beast of Darkness clearly does not anatomically represent a wolf. It is also not referred to as such in the story. The one who claims it is meant to represent a specific animal (you) is the one who has to demonstrate what he asserts.
The burden of proof lies just as much with you and your claim than it does with me and my claim.
Your claim is a positive one. You are saying with absolute certainty that the Beast is not a wolf despite the fact that there is simply nothing explicitly stated on the matter.
You are right that the Beast of Darkness is a beast. I, too, know that the Beast of Darkness is a beast. The point I'm making is that The Beast of Darkness has the potential to be a beast and a wolf (a wolf is nothing more than a type of beast). Just like it has the potential to be a beast and [definitely] not a wolf (your claim).
The bottom line is that we are both free to interpret Miura's imagery the way we see fit. That is the beauty of narrative analysis. Until Miura explicitly defines the beast as something it is (or is not) then it's pointless to try to prove each other right or wrong - burden of proof is irrelevant until it is spelled out for us by the creator as gospel of the narrative.
All we can do is support our hypotheses with evidence (evidence is distinct from proof)....aka give our own takes on the matter. Literary devices are often left up to the reader to discover and interpret. Some may catch on, some may not.
By the way, it's obviously not a wolf like the one you'd find in nature. I noted it looks like a monstrous, stylized, fantastical wolf. If it brings clarity to the discussion, I'll call it a lupine beast instead of a wolf.
I'm not quite sure where the difference lies or why it should matter. The point is it's not a straight-up wolf, which is what you were saying.
You insisted the Beast of Darkness is meant to specifically depict a wolf. Not a vaguely dog-like entity whose form changes at will, you insisted on a wolf. I merely pointed out to you that it's not the case. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't really matter.
I simply believe that the beast is a lupine animal. I just went with "wolf' initially because I didnt think things would get taxidermic...my position is that it is a lupine beast or a canine beast (feral dog of some sort) at the very least. I do not insist that it has been proven it was a wolf. I just look at the evidence in front of me and will interpret it as a wolf. I do acknowledge the fact that defining the beast any further than beast, including saying that it is not a wolf, is pure hypothesis. But hypotheses can differ in terms of supporting evidence and interpretation.
Dark Horse's translation is not word of law on anything. It's often inaccurate, sometimes spectacularly so.
It's literally the official translation though. It's virtually canon. The translation is obviously not inaccurate in this case, in any case. You, yourself, acknowledged that the original japanese words do translate to "howl" among other things. The fact that they, the translators and editors who meticulously work on the English Berserk, chose "howl" over "roar" or something else speaks volumes on the matter.
Because there is literally no evidence it is the case, and if the author meant for it to be connected, he would have made it clear. Because it doesn't make sense in the context of the story. Because to think a one time use of a derogatory figure of speech formed the basis for the positive depiction of the character in a way that is the total opposite of said figure of speech is ridiculous. And so on.
With all due respect, who are you to say that if Miura wanted something to be some way, he would have done it in the way you are claiming? Both you and I are just readers, and, like I said before, until Miura spells something out for us in an interview, letter to a fan, or the manga itself, there is no way to make absolute claims about his work without being able to read his mind or something.
See what I said about confirmation bias. That people used common insults or expressions featuring the word "dog" in them doesn't form a motif. Guts' ears and teeth are also not meant to represent a wolf either, and it's pretty funny you'd say so. As for the Berserk's armor, its helmet has taken on the form of the Beast of Darkness. Out of everything you list here, the actual solid dog references are the ones I mentioned to buttonmasher before you even posted in this thread.
This whole argument is curious because I don't think there is much disagreement here, but you're trying to make things more definite, more clear than they actually are, and you're using flimsy evidence to do so.
After I read this part of your response, we might be misunderstanding each other.
I, by no means, believe that it can be said that the Beast of Darkness is proven with absolute certainty to be a wolf/canine-beast. It is nothing more than my interpretation of the narrative...which I see as heavily implying such.
What I am contesting, though, is your claim that it can be said with certainty that the Beast is
not a wolf/lupine beast. I am also contesting the idea that it can be said with certainty that there is no "dog" motif like I or buttonmasher described.
Basically - there are aspects of Berserk, just like in virtually all narratives from all kinds of mediums, that can be interpreted in different ways based on what is given to us.
