Parents of griffith?

[xechnao]

Yes, but are you sure Muira was necessarily only working with a conceptual model in his work, that is, I think you are ignoring the "plot" of the comic. Whereas in terms of the fabula, Guts and Griffith are both just symbols of opposing concepts, within the syuzhet, "this comic has a cool plot," context, Griffith is the antagonist.

I am not sure I understood completely what you want to tell me but remember that BERSERK is not finished yet.
By the way I believe we are stretching this too far. I am saying that the agonist-antagonist is the serenity-hatred of Guts and you are saying that instead it Guts-Griffith. Hasn't Guts helped Griffith to be where he is now?
Hasn't Griffith spared Guts at the valley of swords and showed that was there for his personal interest of how he could feel and not for Guts himself? Then how could Griffith be the antagonist of Guts, if he is not so interested in him?
Maybe Guts is Griffith's antagonist but practically he has still helped him to be where he is now as said above, which means that neither this state is correct.
I still opt for the serenity-hatred as the best and most interesting agonist-antagonist concept in the plot. BERSERK hasn't finished yet, but I hope it gets the way I want to see it.

 

[Griffith]

BERSERK hasn't finished yet, but I hope it gets the way I want to see it.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will be killing ourselves when that happens.

-Griffith

 

[xechnao]

Meanwhile, the rest of us will be killing ourselves when that happens.

-Griffith

Will you?


8)Nevertheless my tastes are not so farfetched and strange. And I was only talking about the Guts-Griffith, Guts(Good)-Guts(Bad) thing. Hey, I am expecting more from BERSERK than a dungeons&dragons adventure.

 

[DarkShurikn]

But we've allready got it, although
in very smaller proportions though than that of Gut's.

That's why I was talking about a bigger one.. it was implicit...

 

[Judo]

Nevertheless my tastes are not so farfetched and strange. And I was only talking about the Guts-Griffith, Guts(Good)-Guts(Bad) thing. Hey, I am expecting more from BERSERK than a dungeons&dragons adventure.

And so you wanna say that everyone who sees the antagonist in griffith is a hollow-headed and hollywood-brainwashed jerk, or what?

 

[Miyu]

This is a modern reactionary perspective: the meaning and message of BERSERK is that a man's muscles and toughness pay. Classic human literatute does not have this perspective. And the agonist-antagonist definitions you used spring from the analysis of classic works.
If you want to see BERSERK like a hollywood action film then yes, Griffith and Guts can be considered the way you want to consider them. If you want to consider BERSERK's drama in the classical perspective then the antagonist has to be the beast.

What sort of classical perspective are you talking about? If you go by the simple meaning of the word antagonist, you see that Griffith is the antagonist and not the Beast. If you look the word up in the dictionary, it means, opponent. I'm not sure if that gets any more concise.

Concerning the Beast, if you want to put that into perspective, it's more of a character flaw for Guts (going by classical literature). Like in the classic definitions of tragedies, the main character loses or has a loved one incapacitaed due to some events and can't prevent it because of a major character flaw, be it his ego or in Guts case, the Beast.

I am not sure I understood completely what you want to tell me but remember that BERSERK is not finished yet.
By the way I believe we are stretching this too far. I am saying that the agonist-antagonist is the serenity-hatred of Guts and you are saying that instead it Guts-Griffith. Hasn't Guts helped Griffith to be where he is now?
Hasn't Griffith spared Guts at the valley of swords and showed that was there for his personal interest of how he could feel and not for Guts himself? Then how could Griffith be the antagonist of Guts, if he is not so interested in him?
Maybe Guts is Griffith's antagonist but practically he has still helped him to be where he is now as said above, which means that neither this state is correct.
I still opt for the serenity-hatred as the best and most interesting agonist-antagonist concept in the plot. BERSERK hasn't finished yet, but I hope it gets the way I want to see it.

Did you ever read Othello? How something a bit more up to date, like Lord of the Rings? The main antagonist tried to befriend the protagnoist in the stories, but that doesn't mean they're not trying to plot against the protagonist.

 

[xechnao]

If you go by the simple meaning of the word antagonist, you see that Griffith is the antagonist and not the Beast. If you look the word up in the dictionary, it means, opponent. I'm not sure if that gets any more concise.

Here again, because you are insane:
Hasn't Guts helped Griffith to be where he is now?
Hasn't Griffith spared Guts at the valley of swords and showed that was there for his personal interest of how he could feel and not for Guts himself? Then how could Griffith be the antagonist of Guts, if he is not so interested in him?
Maybe Guts is Griffith's antagonist but practically he has still helped him to be where he is now as said above, which means that neither this state is correct.

Concerning the Beast, if you want to put that into perspective, it's more of a character flaw for Guts (going by classical literature). Like in the classic definitions of tragedies, the main character loses or has a loved one incapacitaed due to some events and can't prevent it because of a major character flaw, be it his ego or in Guts case, the Beast. Did you ever read Othello? How something a bit more up to date, like Lord of the Rings? The main antagonist tried to befriend the protagnoist in the stories, but that doesn't mean they're not trying to plot against the protagonist.

Antagonist was corruption. We never see Sauron, yet we see his/corruption's power.Sauron wanted to destroy and corrupt the agonist. Also the agonist didn't help Sauron to rise at his status. That's propablly not like this in the Guts-Griffith situation as you can see just above.
Anyway LotR is not classical but I try to use it as an example to see my point.

 

[Miyu]

Here again, because you are insane:
Hasn't Guts helped Griffith to be where he is now?
Hasn't Griffith spared Guts at the valley of swords and showed that was there for his personal interest of how he could feel and not for Guts himself? Then how could Griffith be the antagonist of Guts, if he is not so interested in him?

He may have done all that, but the antagonist of a story doesn't always devote his time to going against the Protaganist. Sometimes he/she may be on the Protaganist's side for a while. Griffith may be the one who is willing to put aside his differences so he can achieve his dream, but he's still the one who brought Guts to the state he's in right now and that is what fuels the animosity between them.

Maybe Guts is Griffith's antagonist but practically he has still helped him to be where he is now as said above, which means that neither this state is correct.

Why can't Griffith be Guts antagonist if you're willing to give that. If this story was written from Griffith's point of view, I'm sure it would make sense to categorize Guts as teh antagonist, but this story is from Guts's point of view and his antagonist is Griffith.

Antagonist was corruption. We never see Sauron, yet we see his/corruption's power.Sauron wanted to destroy and corrupt the agonist. Also the agonist didn't help Sauron to rise at his status. That's propablly not like this in the Guts-Griffith situation as you can see just above.
Anyway LotR is not classical but I try to use it as an example to see my point.

Bad example, I'll admit that. But I was mainly thinking of Sauraman the White who was on the side of good, but eventually became evil. Still, a bad example from my part.

Wow, we've really drifted from the original topic. Opps! :-[

 

[xechnao]

He may have done all that, but the antagonist of a story doesn't always devote his time to going against the Protaganist. Sometimes he/she may be on the Protaganist's side for a while. Griffith may be the one who is willing to put aside his differences so he can achieve his dream, but he's still the one who brought Guts to the state he's in right now and that is what fuels the animosity between them.

How is Griffith more responsible than Guts himself? Guts must choose his fate and Guts will be responsible for the consequences: or seek Griffith and his revenge, or go away from him and try to retire if possible (actually it is what he is heading to do right now)

Why can't Griffith be Guts antagonist if you're willing to give that. If this story was written from Griffith's point of view, I'm sure it would make sense to categorize Guts as teh antagonist, but this story is from Guts's point of view and his antagonist is Griffith.

Why not the king?

 

[Miyu]

How is Griffith more responsible than Guts himself? Guts must choose his fate and Guts will be responsible for the consequences: or seek Griffith and his revenge, or go away from him and try to retire if possible (actually it is what he is heading to do right now)

Griffith was the one who chose to sacrafice the Band of the Hawks and rape Caska. Those were things out of Guts's control and the main reason why Guts wants to kill Griffith. The whole thing about Guts choosing his fate has nothing to do with who the antagonist is.

Why not the king?

The king may have been a catalyst to start Griffith on his down fall, but he didn't do anything that would make Guts consider him as an opponent. The king would be Griffith's antagonist if anyone's since the king is a person who stands in the way of his dream.

Which brings me back to the topic of Griffith's parents. I wonder if one of his parents may have been of some nobility since Griffith has such noble features.

 

[xechnao]

Griffith was the one who chose to sacrafice the Band of the Hawks and rape Caska. Those were things out of Guts's control and the main reason why Guts wants to kill Griffith. The whole thing about Guts choosing his fate has nothing to do with who the antagonist is.

Guts has the option(and it's his option) to ignore Griffith now. Griffith won't follow to interfere with him any more. So it depends on Guts choice.

The king may have been a catalyst to start Griffith on his down fall, but he didn't do anything that would make Guts consider him as an opponent. The king would be Griffith's antagonist if anyone's since the king is a person who stands in the way of his dream.

Which brings me back to the topic of Griffith's parents. I wonder if one of his parents may have been of some nobility since Griffith has such noble features.

I was talking about Griffith, not Guts. Just to say that Griffith may have had the king as an antagonist.

 

[SaiyajinNoOuji]

He can't just give up, and besides it wouldnt do any good, he would still have all the demon's come after him at night and chances are he would still have apostiles come after him to take the head of "The Black Swordsman". So he has kinda gone past the line of no return.

So he may as well go after Griffith, besides, with adding what Miyu said, the Band of the Hawk were Gut's only friends, how would you like it if your only friends were killed and the only woman you loved was raped and turned into a vegitable? Would you just stand by after some time and let the person who did that come into more power and maybe even end the world?

That is just not Gut's character... Just a thought ;)

 

[xechnao]

He can't just give up, and besides it wouldnt do any good, he would still have all the demon's come after him at night and chances are he would still have apostiles come after him to take the head of "The Black Swordsman". So he has kinda gone past the line of no return.

So he may as well go after Griffith, besides, with adding what Miyu said, the Band of the Hawk were Gut's only friends, how would you like it if your only friends were killed and the only woman you loved was raped and turned into a vegitable? Would you just stand by after some time and let the person who did that come into more power and maybe even end the world?

That is just not Gut's character... Just a thought ;)

He has Caska to protect and possibly cure and the possibility of heaven at elfhelm.
I never said that he will do act like this, just making point that he has this option if he likes and that depends on him.
Personally I don't know if I would seek revenge or stay along with Caska, but it's Guts choice and this is what I am trying to say.

 

[Miyu]

Guts has the option(and it's his option) to ignore Griffith now. Griffith won't follow to interfere with him any more. So it depends on Guts choice.

What does that have to do with who the antagonist of the story is? Sure Guts has a choice, everyone has a choice in the story, but it's not for the readers to pick and choose what Guts should or should not do. That's the author's job. We can only read what he's already drawn and written, not hypothesize and restate as fact what we think may or should happen.

I was talking about Griffith, not Guts. Just to say that Griffith may have had the king as an antagonist.

That may be the case for Griffith, but again, he's not the main character of the story. It seems like you're drifting way off topic so I'm just going to stop now.

 

[xechnao]

What does that have to do with who the antagonist of the story is? Sure Guts has a choice, everyone has a choice in the story, but it's not for the readers to pick and choose what Guts should or should not do. That's the author's job. We can only read what he's already drawn and written, not hypothesize and restate as fact what we think may or should happen.That may be the case for Griffith, but again, he's not the main character of the story. It seems like you're drifting way off topic so I'm just going to stop now.

I am saying that agonist-antagonist must be two things connected with a relationship on both ends. If Griffith's antagonist is not Guts how could Guts antagonist be Griffith? In the case Griffith is Guts antagonist and Guts "wins" Griffith, that would directly make Griffith's antagonist Guts, something that hasn't been shown in the story like this(Griffith spares Guts).
This is what I am trying to say.
Despite Guts' feelings now, Guts has helped in the story Griffith to be where he is, when his feellings were different. That's why I am saying that are those feellings that count for the story in the end.

 

[Cryptic]

well im going with my 12th grade English definition of berserk...

Guts: the Protagonist, The central character of the story, whom the majority of the plot follows. whether he is "good" or "evil" is a moot point.

Grifith/Godhand/Apostles: The Antagonists, Supporting characters who apose the protagonist during the story, it also does not matter if they succed or not as killing the protagonist does will not make them the new protagonist, it will just turn the story into a tragedy.

 

[xechnao]

well im going with my 12th grade English definition of berserk...

Guts: the Protagonist, The central character of the story, whom the majority of the plot follows. whether he is "good" or "evil" is a moot point.

Grifith/Godhand/Apostles: The Antagonists, Supporting characters who apose the protagonist during the story, it also does not matter if they succed or not as killing the protagonist does will not make them the new protagonist, it will just turn the story into a tragedy.

I repeat: i don't want to see BERSERK manga and it's story as an arcade game. Actually if you are interested such a thing allready exists.

 

[Cryptic]

I repeat: i don't want to see BERSERK manga and it's story as an arcade game. Actually if you are interested such a thing allready exists.

...um in case your were wondering the concept i just outlined are the basic guidelines of what makes something a "story". you cant have two protagonists who oppose each other. the main character is ALWAYS the protagonist, no matter how much you think it simplifies the story.

 

[Smith]

Oh Xechnao pls SHUT UP... you never cease to argue back and you just think that the whole world is wrong and you are the only one right... Countless time have you drifted far from the topic and turn the whole thread into rubbish because of your stubborness and your idiocy of posting unrelated stuff... Enough is enough!


Seriously i am trying hard refraining my myself from replying you... but the whole thread was half filled with all your POSTS!

 

[xechnao]

Well I reasonably explained the way I see it...
that's all

 

[Miyu]

I am saying that agonist-antagonist must be two things connected with a relationship on both ends. If Griffith's antagonist is not Guts how could Guts antagonist be Griffith? In the case Griffith is Guts antagonist and Guts "wins" Griffith, that would directly make Griffith's antagonist Guts, something that hasn't been shown in the story like this(Griffith spares Guts).
This is what I am trying to say.
Despite Guts' feelings now, Guts has helped in the story Griffith to be where he is, when his feellings were different. That's why I am saying that are those feellings that count for the story in the end.

Firstly, the word agonist-antagonist does not apply to literature. It applies to science and medicine. I'm not sure why you insist on using that word, but the meaning of antagonist that everyone else is talking about is the one related to literature. The relationship between the protagonist and antagonist are related, but cannot be rotated. i.e. a equals b, but b does not equal a. By that logic, it is plausible for Griffith to be Guts's antagonist, but Guts not Griffith's.

Feelings and the like are not factored into the equation of trying to determine the protagonist/antagonist of the story. They are relevant in character development and the rest of the story, which is what you seem to be confused about. Yes, feelings do count for the story in the end, but again you are drifting away from the main argument of who the antagonist of Berserk is, which you adamantly insist is not Griffith.

I repeat: i don't want to see BERSERK manga and it's story as an arcade game. Actually if you are interested such a thing allready exists.

Heaven forbid that arcade games have stories or plots to them where you also have characters, development and other things that are represented in the manga, Berserk. It sounds like you're trying to categorize Berserk as a manga of epic proportions that is too good to be associated with the same criteria as games and movies. Guess what, the same criteria to judge great epic works are used for games and movies as well. It's taught in all literature classes. I don't know what you learned in school, but I think everyone else in learned the same thing I did. If you have obvious objections to these points, then I know there's nothing in my power to change your mind. Just know that this is not a complicated issue and it's not necessary to think so far outside the box that you forget what was inside it.

 

[xechnao]

I am not confused, it's only that you don't want to see my point of view.
I wasn't the one to bring the agonist-antagonist matter in the thread but I gave my interpretation and you gave yours.
Can you accept this?

Oh and about arcades, don't be redicilous. I meant the games that stand there for the action and not the story and you know that.

 

[Hi_There]

My point of view...

Protagonist=Guts

Antagonist(s)=every other theme.

In my perspective, Berserk seems to be
Man vs man(Guts vs Griffith)
Man vs Himself(Guts vs his beast)
Man vs Nature(Guts vs the nature of the Berserk world-the brand, spectral elements etc etc)
Man vs fate(Guts vs death, what fate foretold for him etc etc)

However, I'd agree that Griffith is the main protagonist, in which most of those other themes are 'amplified' through him.