Guts Metaphorically Becoming Griffith in, "The Black Swordsman"

The story of Guts becoming a monster in the Black Swordsman days is obviously a big part of the first section of Berserk, but I think during, "The Golden Age," Miura brilliantly reverse-engineered his own writing from, "The Black Swordsman," and "The Brand," so that Guts was, metaphorically, right on the brink of becoming Griffith.

The biggest, least ambiguous example of this is when Guts claws at himself after explaining to Puck how he doesn't care about anyone dying in his revenge quest. Griffith did exactly that in the seventh volume, while explaining to Casca how he didn't have any regrets about people dying as part of his quest to reach his dream.
MEm6OoT.jpg


It's the same, but it's also different. Guts was just talking people who, "get caught up in someone else's fight," while Griffith is talking about people who, "themselves chose to fight." Guts just about comes across as worse than Griffith here--yet, his goal is to destroy something fundamentally evil, while Griffith in that scene openly admits that his beautiful dream, "can only be realized by building on their corpses." Griffith is fundamentally responsible for the deaths of those he asked to risk their lives for him, but Guts is creating a situation where people will still have some level of agency. But then again, Griffith never forced anyone to join up, while Guts is disrupting the lives of bystanders.

Both men feel such anguish about the consequences of their actions that they actually harm themselves. But Griffith pushes Casca away when she tries to comfort him, while Guts experiences his overwhelming pain after accidentally pushing Puck away. Griffith's pain is the result of the choices that he himself has made, while Guts's is largely the result of choices others made. The scenes show that both men arrived at the same emotional place, not being as uncaring as they claim, but the paths they took are radically different. I'd argue there's still hope for Guts, but Griffith (as he usually does) chooses an even darker path.

There's also another big parallel that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere (sorry if I missed it): the torture scenes. Have a look at this:
tlDacVC.jpg


Taken from the scenes where Guts and Griffith are hanging up.
Those scenes actually follow the same basic script. G does something that we as readers wouldn't consider that bad. G gets hung up and tortured by a short, fat, mostly naked guy. The ruler comes in and accuses G of unnecessarily destroying the peace. G tells the ruler that he's full of shit, really he's a selfish bastard--basically G speaks truth to power--and G has no regrets. The ruler tells G he doesn't understand the burdens of power. G then gets tortured to the point of near-paralysis for provoking the ruler.

But once again, the differences matter and show how Guts still has hope, while Griffith is just going lower and lower. Firstly, the reason Griffith is here is that he was being selfish and stupid and he's derailed his own plan. Guts got here by killing assholes everyone hated in order to provoke a monster into coming for him, and his plan still has a shot. Additionally, Griffith's version of the, 'truth,' is the worst possible interpretation of the situation, while Guts's is completely on target. Still, the end result is the same, and both men wind up in the same place.
McEFlVS.jpg

There's a few other places where the parallels line up neatly. Puck and Casaca align at the prisons, both holding the keys that get G&G out of prison. Guts incidentally saved Puck, and Griffith saved Casca to prove a point, but here the tables are being turned. There's also places that invert the parallels really well. My favorite is Griffith standing on top of a pile of corpses in his vision at the eclipse, against Guts hiding under and then climbing up on top of the corpses to fight the Baron. There's also (a bit thin, but still) the fact that Griffith's destination is a castle, while Guts's goal in the first episode is to get the Baron to come down from the castle.

The core of this parallel comes down to, 'the meaning of life.' Guts's life at this point is entirely about Griffith, who he was and who he became. He has fully internalized all of what Griffith once said about dreams and their importance, to the point where he believes it more than (arguably) Griffith did. Take this parallel:
jnnjdWV.jpg

Griffith is speculating, and his next statement is, "or was death the end of his dream?" But Guts seems to believe this utterly, and to believe that the same principle applies to his life. It is a moment of affirmation for Guts, but of hesitation for Griffith. Yet, Griffith kept going on the same path. Guts, however, is really just still reacting to the choices Griffith made. Griffith is going to buy into his own bullshit completely, but Guts is going to escape.

Here's the most important bit, I think:
RVnmET4.jpg

Both Guts and Griffith are, in this moment, making a conscious choice not to care about a dead child. But Griffith is responding to being told he's always known he was responsible for that child's death and that if it didn't stop him then, it shouldn't stop him now. Guts is responding to being told by Puck that this wasn't his fault, and the glint of madness in his eye suggests even he can't believe what he's saying. Griffith is setting aside his last doubt, but Guts isn't that far gone. He still feels responsible, even though he (mostly, not entirely) objectively isn't. Other people (Collette, her father, even Griffith making the brand) made choices here, not just him.

The fact that there's still hope for Guts even at his worst, at the very beginning of the Black Swordsman, is really highlighted by this key difference:

GxUbW02.jpg

Guts and Griffith are both visited by demonic emissaries here, and I think there's a pretty clear visual parallel between the Demon Child and the creature that touches Griffith. One thing the dialogue here shoes is that Guts actually has an unfair advantage over Griffith when it comes to turning back from this path: he knows what he's dealing with Griffith didn't, and so was much more easily manipulated. But the fundamental difference between these demons is, of course, that Griffith is being visited by creatures who worship him and want something specific from him, and Guts is being visited by what remained of his son after the eclipse. Guts's son is, presumably, trying to help him, while as far as these creatures are concerned Griffith is on the right path.

This also shows the different ways that Guts and Griffith had of interacting with the people around them, and how that directly led to different consequences. Griffith spoke of the people who followed him as fundamentally lesser, and worked hard to keep an emotional distance from them. That directly led to his overreaction when his only friend left, and to the fact that no one knew where he was in time to help him before he was practically beyond all help. Guts, however, instinctively sees everyone as fundamentally the same, and is equally rude and honest to all of them. That allowed him to have actual meaningful relationships. That's why he has a son here, no matter how messed up the poor kid is, and that's part of why this becomes the first of many times Puck saves him. And while Griffith's release of his relationships will send him finally, forever, into the dark, Guts's eventual choice to hold on leads him into the light.

So, that was fun to write! I'm a new fan, and I'm super grateful to have found this community--looking forward to chatting about if I missed or misinterpreted anything! Thanks for reading!

Late edit: assuming that I'm correct in saying that Miura did this deliberately, it forms a decent foundation as far back as the first episode for how the Beast of Darkness tells Guts several times that he should be more like Griffith in order to beat Griffith! Case in point:
8qDLLLA.png
 
Last edited:

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Hey Sarucane, welcome to the forum. I always appreciate it when people ground their arguments with visuals. The visuals helped me understand your points, but I’m always wary of artificially paired comparisons, because they can seem to provide meaningful connections when much of that is only in the eye of the beholder.

I think we can all pretty much agree that Miura is trying to convey to readers that in pursuing his dark enemies, Guts became darker himself and more distant from humanity. But that's not the same as "Guts metaphorically becoming Griffith." And I'm not convinced that these circumstantial pairings you’ve presented are anything but coincidence, or even invite any comparison—with one exception.

I do think the self-harm scenes should resonate with readers, or at least cause a spark of familiarity. Because that is a very specific form of self-harm. However, I see this as merely a way for Miura to show how unstable these characters are beneath their exterior. They are struggling with internal conflicts that are, well... "tearing" them apart. They're feeling the friction between their actions in pursuit of their goals and the burden that has left on their conscience. And while that may connect Guts and Griffith in this singular moment, it's not Guts "becoming" Griffith. They have a similar moment of struggle for different reasons, and the scenes serve vastly different purposes.

For Griffith, the scene is an indication that beneath this warm person is a cold personality that seeks to discard things in his life that veer him from his path. For Guts, the self-harm clues readers in that there's more to this coldblooded guy than there seems to be. That's the opposite effect. And as you indicated, much of the self-interested bravado that Guts spouts throughout the Black Swordsman arc is part of a shroud he wears to insulate himself from others. These are the echoes of trauma Griffith inflicted on Guts, not a progression of Guts becoming Griffith.

Many of the other examples you use—Griffith and Guts in the cell with their heads cast down, Puck and Casca both having the key, Griffith and Guts each getting supernatural, deformed visitors—these really aren't connections. They are artificial framings divorced from meaning. If these were intentional parallels that Miura was making, in which he expects readers to connect the scenes and derive meaning from them... well, I would call them failures. Instead I think you started with a decent premise, but ended up grasping at more material than the series presents us with.
 
Hey Sarucane, welcome to the forum. I always appreciate it when people ground their arguments with visuals. The visuals helped me understand your points, but I’m always wary of artificially paired comparisons, because they can seem to provide meaningful connections when much of that is only in the eye of the beholder.

I think we can all pretty much agree that Miura is trying to convey to readers that in pursuing his dark enemies, Guts became darker himself and more distant from humanity. But that's not the same as "Guts metaphorically becoming Griffith." And I'm not convinced that these circumstantial pairings you’ve presented are anything but coincidence, or even invite any comparison—with one exception.

I do think the self-harm scenes should resonate with readers, or at least cause a spark of familiarity. Because that is a very specific form of self-harm. However, I see this as merely a way for Miura to show how unstable these characters are beneath their exterior. They are struggling with internal conflicts that are, well... "tearing" them apart. They're feeling the friction between their actions in pursuit of their goals and the burden that has left on their conscience. And while that may connect Guts and Griffith in this singular moment, it's not Guts "becoming" Griffith. They have a similar moment of struggle for different reasons, and the scenes serve vastly different purposes.

For Griffith, the scene is an indication that beneath this warm person is a cold personality that seeks to discard things in his life that veer him from his path. For Guts, the self-harm clues readers in that there's more to this coldblooded guy than there seems to be. That's the opposite effect. And as you indicated, much of the self-interested bravado that Guts spouts throughout the Black Swordsman arc is part of a shroud he wears to insulate himself from others. These are the echoes of trauma Griffith inflicted on Guts, not a progression of Guts becoming Griffith.

Many of the other examples you use—Griffith and Guts in the cell with their heads cast down, Puck and Casca both having the key, Griffith and Guts each getting supernatural, deformed visitors—these really aren't connections. They are artificial framings divorced from meaning. If these were intentional parallels that Miura was making, in which he expects readers to connect the scenes and derive meaning from them... well, I would call them failures. Instead I think you started with a decent premise, but ended up grasping at more material than the series presents us with.
Hi Walter, big fan of the Skullcast, nice to e-meet you!

Some of the points here I'll concede, like the Puck-Casca parallel, and I can't argue that a lot of comparison like this comes down to the eye of the beholder.

That said, I'd argue that the framing of the shots in the prison and the similar progression of events suggests a deliberate authorial choice. These are very specific events (the hanging up in chains, the provocation of the ruler, the resulting paralysis facedown in a cell while approached by a similarly distorted demon) that aren't repeated with other characters. The angle of the close-up of Guts and Griffith's face while talking to the king and mayor is almost identical--although I defer to your knowledge if that's actually an angle Miura uses a lot and I just didn't notice! If only one of these visual parallels was present, I would concede that it just 'artificial framings divorced from meaning,' but all of these framings, in a near-identical sequence, following a near-identical plot trajectory, seems to me a step beyond that. Still, in the end, I am interpreting authorial intent and can't prove it! Edit: Can't prove whether it was intentional or not, but the text parallel is there whether it was planned or an accident.

I'd also like to engage on this point you made about the self-harm scenes, "For Griffith, the scene is an indication that beneath this warm person is a cold personality that seeks to discard things in his life that veer him from his path." Wouldn't the self-harm as he's making cold statements about the importance of his path indicate that he's more conflicted about the consequences of his actions than he's willing to admit? Both indicate to the readers that the character has much more internal conflict about their actions than they are admitting consciously. (I haven't listened to the volume 7 episode of the Skullcast yet, feel free to just refer me to it!)


In hindsight, I wish I could rename this post: I think what's happening to Guts isn't a process of him exactly becoming Griffith, that's too extreme a statement. It's more It's like Guts is converging with Griffith (in the prison, over the dead child) as he internalizes the trauma Griffith inflicted, with the risk of genuinely becoming, 'Griffith,' in a mental or philosophical way. Edit: Strikethrough based on further evidence for this theory found in my latest reread, where the Beast directly tells Guts to be more like Griffith.

To this point, "And as you indicated, much of the self-interested bravado that Guts spouts throughout the Black Swordsman arc is part of a shroud he wears to insulate himself from others. These are the echoes of trauma Griffith inflicted on Guts, not a progression of Guts becoming Griffith."
Even if it is bravado, I think the statements align too closely with Griffith's to be an accident, pointing to the way Guts's obsession with killing Griffith, and the associated trauma, risks changing him in dangerous ways beyond simple bloodthirstiness. I don't believe (although you would know better) that other characters in the series spend time ruminating over whether dying in battle is something to be happy about, or considering their responsibility for a child's death on a battlefield. Those are pretty specific circumstances, repeated only twice and with two characters who respond in similar ways.
 
Last edited:
I was poking around the forums to distract myself from hiatus pain, and having listened to more Skullcast and finished my latest reread, I thought I’d drop in a further response!

I’m always wary of artificially paired comparisons, because they can seem to provide meaningful connections when much of that is only in the eye of the beholder...Many of the other examples you use—Griffith and Guts in the cell with their heads cast down, Puck and Casca both having the key, Griffith and Guts each getting supernatural, deformed visitors—these really aren't connections. They are artificial framings divorced from meaning.
I disagree with the premise that all the evidence I presented is purely, ‘artificial,’ and therefore should be approached as inherently questionable. One or two parallels would be an, “artificial framing divorced from meaning,” or down purely to the, "eye of the beholder," but I outlined six distinct visual and/or textual parallels here, including two complete scenes with a further series of internal parallels. Given that Berserk is famously detailed, and that the scenes I point to were published within 6-7 years of each other (I believe), it is reasonable to conclude that so many parallels are likely to be deliberate. And if they’re not, Miura should definitely take credit for it!

I do think the self-harm scenes should resonate with readers, or at least cause a spark of familiarity. Because that is a very specific form of self-harm. However, I see this as merely a way for Miura to show how unstable these characters are beneath their exterior. They are struggling with internal conflicts that are, well... "tearing" them apart. They're feeling the friction between their actions in pursuit of their goals and the burden that has left on their conscience. And while that may connect Guts and Griffith in this singular moment, it's not Guts "becoming" Griffith. They have a similar moment of struggle for different reasons, and the scenes serve vastly different purposes.

For Griffith, the scene is an indication that beneath this warm person is a cold personality that seeks to discard things in his life that veer him from his path. For Guts, the self-harm clues readers in that there's more to this coldblooded guy than there seems to be. That's the opposite effect.
The hyper-specific nature of the characters’ actions still indicates a meaningful connection. There are other ways Miura could have communicated that the characters are 'tearing themselves apart.' The core conflict of the characters in the two scenes is the same: caring vs. uncaring, coldhearted vs. empathetic. That core similarity does not mean that the scenes cannot also convey different information about the characters. As I argued in the original post, all of these connections and parallels highlight how the characters both converge and diverge.

If these were intentional parallels that Miura was making, in which he expects readers to connect the scenes and derive meaning from them... well, I would call them failures.
As far as the parallels go, the premise of my argument was that these parallels and the resulting character and story structure exist, not the degree to which Miura himself intended readers to derive specific meaning based on it. The existence of this structure as a deliberate authorial choice is supported by the fact that Miura explicitly integrated this idea (that Guts was on a path to becoming, 'like Griffith') into the story, starting near the same time from which I drew my Golden Age parallels: Guts left the Band to, as he discussed with Corkus and Judeau, become more like Griffith in order to be his ‘equal.’

These are the echoes of trauma Griffith inflicted on Guts, not a progression of Guts becoming Griffith.
Those two things are explicitly linked in the text. Guts’ trauma itself becomes a motivator for him to be more like Griffith: the Beast tells Guts to make the sacrifice during the Conviction arc and even appears as Griffith; the Beast tells Guts to treat Casca like Griffith did; Slan tells Guts to make the sacrifice like Griffith did. There’s even a distinct visual parallel between the Beast’s eye and the Falcon’s eye, particularly noticeable in Casca’s dreamscape. The effect of the narrative structure I highlighted in this post is to retroactively plant the seeds of that progression in the Black Swordsman arc, which would be a logical authorial choice once Miura knew he was writing a longer story.

Now, I did argue for one specific interpretation of the meaning of these parallels: that Guts in the Black Swordsman arc is dangerously close to 'becoming' Griffith. From listening to the Skullcast, I understand that you guys have reached a different interpretation of the degree to which Guts, ‘believed his own bullshit’ in the Black Swordsman arc--but since this is Berserk and a lot is deliberately left ambiguous, I’d argue that neither interpretation of the subtleties of what’s happening inside Guts' head should be taken as the objectively, ‘correct,’ one. Like you said in your original response, we can all agree that Guts became darker as the Black Swordsman.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
I disagree with the premise that all the evidence I presented is purely, ‘artificial,’ and therefore should be approached as inherently questionable. One or two parallels would be an, “artificial framing divorced from meaning,” or down purely to the, "eye of the beholder," but I outlined six distinct visual and/or textual parallels here, including two complete scenes with a further series of internal parallels.

Having many panels slapped side by side does not increase the weight of your argument that there are connections. And they are artificial because the panel composition / pages don't make the comparisons. You're artificing the connections, and because of that, it comes across as specious right from the get-go. Overall, these images do a disservice to the argument you're trying to make.

Those two things are explicitly linked in the text.

I thought you'd already conceded that "I think what's happening to Guts isn't a process of him exactly becoming Griffith, that's too extreme a statement." But now we're back to this?

There’s even a distinct visual parallel between the Beast’s eye and the Falcon’s eye, particularly noticeable in Casca’s dreamscape.

I just peeked through that sequence, and I genuinely don't know what you're referencing. They definitely both have distinctive eye designs.

But I think this is a good example of precisely where we disagree. You seem to really be looking hard for connections across the series. And if that's what you're seeking, whether it's Berserk or anything else, you're naturally going to come away with the impression that certain things are connected. I understand that many people like to explore different series in this way, looking for connections and ruminating over what feels like symbolic meaning.
Personally I prefer to stick with what the author chooses to show us, and don't get caught up in the grey area of "this skin fold looks like this other skin fold, what could it mean?" Likewise, I'm sure you'd argue that I'm being obtuse.

Beyond the specifics, I simply don't think Miura operates in this way when writing. He's not too subtle when making direct connections (Ex: Guts, during the Gaiseric flashback in Vol 10—"Huh, sounds like Griffith"). When there are connections to be made, he makes them plain. He doesn't force readers to flip between 6 volumes and compare different panels to see the hidden meaning.

I understand that you guys have reached a different interpretation of the degree to which Guts, ‘believed his own bullshit’ in the Black Swordsman arc

Given his answer to Theresia (telling her to go kill herself) and his actual reaction (crying), I don't really think it's up for debate that much of Guts' off-putting selfishness in the Black Swordsman era was a way of keeping his distance from others, and not how he really felt.
 
Well, I wanted an excuse to talk about Berserk without a new episode! :) Although most of this response seems to be about me and the nature of my argument, not about Berserk...

Having many panels slapped side by side does not increase the weight of your argument that there are connections. And they are artificial because the panel composition / pages don't make the comparisons. You're artificing the connections, and because of that, it comes across as specious right from the get-go. Overall, these images do a disservice to the argument you're trying to make.
That's a misrepresentation. I do not have a series of random panels 'slapped side by side,' I have laid out a series of specific framings of two people, in extremely similar physical positions or saying extremely similar things, and often responding to similar events.

I thought you'd already conceded that "I think what's happening to Guts isn't a process of him exactly becoming Griffith, that's too extreme a statement." But now we're back to this?
Yep. I read more, I saw the story line more clearly as I re-read, and I was wrong to back down so easily (and possibly a little star struck after listening so much to your podcast: I'm a huge nerd, rather obviously)!

Edit: come to think of it, in that original response you wrote, "I always appreciate it when people ground their arguments with visuals. The visuals helped me understand your points," but here you wrote, "these images do a disservice to the argument you're trying to make," so I guess we've both changed our minds!

I just peeked through that sequence, and I genuinely don't know what you're referencing. They definitely both have distinctive eye designs.
I distinctly remember someone referencing this in one of the Skullcasts, but hell if I know who or which one (I want to say it was a reread for a volume the Beast was in?)! Zigzag glowing white eye slash on a black background-- that's 5 visual similarities , so it's not a big leap when the Beast had twice before told Guts he should be like Griffith.

But I think this is a good example of precisely where we disagree. You seem to really be looking hard for connections across the series. And if that's what you're seeking, whether it's Berserk or anything else, you're naturally going to come away with the impression that certain things are connected. I understand that many people like to explore different series in this way, looking for connections and ruminating over what feels like symbolic meaning.
Personally I prefer to stick with what the author chooses to show us, and don't get caught up in the grey area of "this skin fold looks like this other skin fold, what could it mean?" Likewise, I'm sure you'd argue that I'm being obtuse.
Again, the problem seems to be me and my argument before it's been made! If I'm understanding you correctly, your position going into any argument that has visual or textual parallels as evidence is that the very process of looking for parallels is itself misguided and, unless the argument meets your subjective standard of being 'overwhelming,' also invalid. Just like I and others like me can "naturally" find parallels and connections when we go looking it makes sense that you would then fail to be convinced by any such argument! I'd call that position more, 'going into arguments in bad faith,' than, 'obtuse'--but hey, this forum is your house, you get to run it how you like!

Beyond the specifics, I simply don't think Miura operates in this way when writing. He's not too subtle when making direct connections (Ex: Guts, during the Gaiseric flashback in Vol 10—"Huh, sounds like Griffith"). When there are connections to be made, he makes them plain. He doesn't force readers to flip between 6 volumes and compare different panels to see the hidden meaning.

I still am not making an argument that this is a connection that is meant to be received by certain readers in certain ways, or that it's something that a reader would somehow be, 'forced,' to understand in order to understand the story. It is an element of story structure. I am showing that it exists at all, and giving an interpretation. As I said, I am not making a statement on "the degree to which Miura himself intended readers to derive specific meaning based on it."
Having unsubtle connections does not mean subtle connections are impossible. More importantly, what I am pointing to are (sometimes) subtly planted seeds of a character plot that becomes extremely unsubtle: the Beast turning its head into Griffith and saying, "you should become a real monster, like him," is not subtle.
Imagining Miura's head for a moment, making obvious connections like that would be borderline impossible in a flashback arc ('this is just like...the future!'), so it would be logical to make more subtle connections than he'd normally have preferred in that context. Like I said, if it wasn't on purpose he should definitely pretend it was!

Given his answer to Theresia (telling her to go kill herself) and his actual reaction (crying), I don't really think it's up for debate that much of Guts' off-putting selfishness in the Black Swordsman era was a way of keeping his distance from others, and not how he really felt.
What I said was that we seem to be in disagreement on, "the degree to which Guts, ‘believed his own bullshit.’" That is not me saying that his selfishness was, "how he really felt." The original post I wrote is full of me pointing to moments of extreme conflict. I agree that it's not up for debate that much of his bullshit is him keeping others at a distance. The interpretive part is how much, and how much he succeeded in internalizing that bullshit as he tried to stay sane.


You know, on reflection, this is a waste of time for both of us, isn't it? Your premise is that my argument is by its very nature invalid, regardless of what evidence I present, because my evidence is, 'artificial,' and therefore purely subjective. My premise is that my argument is valid, and that the parallels I've drawn have an objective existence beyond my own eyes. And neither of us is willing to be convinced that the other is correct, so now there's a level of bad faith argument on my side as well! Oh dear. Well, it was fun to do the Berserk-related writing at least! Appreciate your time!
 
Last edited:

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I wanted an excuse to talk about Berserk without a new episode! :) Although most of this response seems to be about me and the nature of my argument, not about Berserk...
I had already responded to your points a month ago. You replied, but I felt I had said enough, so I let it go. But now you're back to I guess try and convince me again? That's why we're now discussing the nature of the discussion.

I do not have a series of random panels 'slapped side by side,' I have laid out a series of specific framings of two people, in extremely similar physical positions or saying extremely similar things, and often responding to similar events.

By "extremely similar" you mean things like this?

tlDacVC.jpg

What exactly am I meant to be responding to here? They are tilting their head down slightly? There is absolutely nothing of substance to compare here. This is bonkers.

McEFlVS.jpg

I can see here that they are both lying on their stomachs in a jail cell and there is water present. Is that it? Readers should be intuiting that this is Guts becoming Griffith?


GxUbW02.jpg

Yes. Here are deformed creatures—unrelated and completely out of context. But you're saying that readers are meant to visually connect these two scenes, 9 volumes apart, and conclude: "Hey this is kind of like Guts becoming Griffith."


Edit: come to think of it, in that original response you wrote, "I always appreciate it when people ground their arguments with visuals. The visuals helped me understand your points," but here you wrote, "these images do a disservice to the argument you're trying to make," so I guess we've both changed our minds!

Nope, not a change of mind. I do appreciate it when people use images. And some of your images do spell out the points you're trying to make, but ultimately the weaker ones detract from making it seem legitimate (for all the reasons I've already said). It'd be the same as if someone explained how gravity worked, and then offhandedly said the world was actually flat. It puts everything they said previously into a much less compelling light.

Zigzag glowing white eye slash on a black background-- that's 5 visual similarities , so it's not a big leap, particularly when the Beast had twice before told Guts he should be like Griffith.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your position going into any argument that has visual or textual parallels as evidence is that the very process of looking for parallels is itself misguided and, unless the argument meets your subjective standard of being 'overwhelming,' also invalid. It makes sense that you would then fail to be convinced!

I feel like I've already explained this: "I’m always wary of artificially paired comparisons, because they can seem to provide meaningful connections when much of that is only in the eye of the beholder." If you're comparing two scenes without context, I'm immediately skeptical of the point you're trying to make, as anyone should be for anything. And to be clear, skeptical doesn't mean "this guy's wrong!" It simply means that I'm extra cautious when people try to shortcut their points through visuals that can misrepresent the meaning they originally possessed.

I'd lean more towards, 'going into arguments in bad faith,' than towards, 'obtuse'--but hey, this forum is your house, you get to run it how you like!

What does me running the forum have anything to do with our discussion here? Would my rejection of your idea be more believable if I were someone named Berzork666?

Now, I really don't enjoy quote warring with people, because I don't feel it ever makes much progress. It's trench-digging and time-consuming. That's why I prefer to make summary arguments, but I tried that twice, and ultimately feel like that was a mistake. At this point I'd much rather just reset the table and talk about it. So if you want to PM me your skype, I'd happily talk with you about your idea and what's keeping me from being compelled by it. If you want, I'll even make it a little off-schedule podcast. I can't think of another time I've made that kind of offer on this forum, but if you'd rather continue to quote war, it's going to have to be with someone else.
 
What exactly am I meant to be responding to here? They are tilting their head down slightly? There is absolutely nothing of substance to compare here. This is bonkers.
I can see here that they are both lying on their stomachs in a jail cell and there is water present. Is that it? Readers should be intuiting that this is Guts becoming Griffith?
If you're comparing two scenes without context, I'm immediately skeptical of the point you're trying to make
With the images removed from the context of the scenes that I wrote about at length, yeah, it sounds bonkers, can't argue with that! Multi-layered, as I said.

But you're saying that readers are meant to visually connect these two scenes,
To quote myself quoting myself, "As I said, I am not making a statement on "the degree to which Miura himself intended readers to derive specific meaning based on it."

What does me running the forum have anything to do with our discussion here? Would my rejection of your idea be more believable if I were someone named Berzork666?
I'm trying to be polite, man, not to suggest that you running the forum makes you somehow less believable! We're all allowed to argue however we want, and I meant that you're extra allowed to do that when you have to deal with as much crap as a forum admin must have to put up with. (My very un-Guts-like overdeveloped respect for authority is coming out. Also, is that a real name someone had? That is priceless...)

Now, I really don't enjoy quote warring with people, because I don't feel it ever makes much progress. It's trench-digging. I prefer summary arguments, but I feel like that was a mistake this time, so my hand was forced. At this point I'd much rather just reset the table and talk about it. So if you want to PM me your skype, I'd happily talk with you about your idea and what's keeping me from being compelled by it. If you want, I'll even make it a little off-schedule podcast. I can't think of another time I've made that kind of offer on this forum, but if you'd rather continue to quote war, it's going to have to be with someone else.
Haha, this has a name? I somehow thought this was the way people were 'supposed' to do it on here from looking at other posts, and was a bit embarrassed by my original summary reply (I tried to combine quotes this time to make it less war-ey)! That's an incredibly kind offer, I sincerely appreciate it and will let you know! Have a good one!

Edit: Right, the dreamscape Falcon and the Beast of Darkness thing. When the Falcon initially appears in the dreamscape, it's just got that one 2-pronged slash before its eyes open, that's the bit I was talking about
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom