What makes him better than so many Asian writers?

What makes him better than so many Asian writers?

He's not. You just prefer adventure stories to lit.

who is this qt patootie

I think that's an oversimplification of the sub matter at hand. Oda doesn't stick to one genre and i would venture to say that the quality of literature he produces is better than a lot of the well-acclaimed Japanese, And Asian work in general.

Eiichiro Oda

How much "well-acclaimed Japanese" literature have you read? Who specifically are you saying he's better than?

Mostly, The works of kyoka, Togashi, Kazu, Kojima, Kaoya. Sure there are a lot differences between them, but i'm speaking in general terms. He's a lot better than they're. His writing is more complex and insightful into the human nature. Not trying to force my opinion. Just saying.

So you're not trying to claim he's better than literary authors then? That's fine. But this thread should be on /a/, not Veeky Forums.

forgot the smarmy author picture that time

I think he's worth discussing on this board. I mean some of the Volume's he has produces are acknowledged in Japan as high works of literary arts.

Have you read anything by him?

There's no reason to crossover the topics for boards that are specifically about those topics already. Keep it to /a/ and /co/, user. Or at least try to read books without pictures in them.

incredible characterization (although they are just really good archetypes)

incredible fluidity of genre

incredible character design

incredible construction of arcs

a rare writer who can make any arc his story equally enthralling, beginning, middle, climax or (the big one, which he excels at) denouements. few people can do denouements like oda.

able to create heart-wrenching scenes out of nowhere (nami stabbing herself, the scene where luffy hits vivi, kuma separating the crew, etc.) which he often sets up years in advance (merry's funeral, merry saving the crew, robin's "i want to live", etc.)

now if it had all the kiddy shit extracted it would be a masterpiece. i'm not talking about the humor because oda has god-tier humor in his stories unlike any other living being i'm aware of. i'm talking about having to explain blatantly obvious shit like i'm 12.

and the show has always had too much filler

also pell should've died

and post-timeskip is mostly shit, and where it isn't shit, it's a rehash

gOda

G O D A
O
D
A

>manga
>literature
what ?

Care to explain how it's not a For of literary Art?

it relies heavily on illustrations, which take up more space than the words

That is extremely false, If one were to count the words, And the space they take relative to the page size and exclamations you would find that they are more literary than not, really.

I have only read Mishima's Golden Pavillion, what other Japanese novels should I read?

Check out Yoshihiro Togashi's Hunter hunter.

Did you like it?

yes, I read it over a decade ago and still remember much of it, I should reread it.

I never thought I'd see one piece on Veeky Forums.
I love one piece but Oda's writing isn't as complex as the other writers' in this thread.
A very fun manga though

Literature is an art that is done with only words and doesn't rely on anything except words. Your implication is that film, television, and music are all literature because they have writing in them.

what about drama?

Isnt it like scripts for actors?

Drama, for the most part, is not literature. Shakespeare is an exception.

Try more Mishima, then. Confessions of a Mask (one of his first novels) is his semi-autobiographical novel which really sets down a few of the themes he would continue to tackle throughout his life and Sun & Steel (written near the end of his life) is probably the culmination of his thoughts on these ideas.

Not really. Film televsion and music aren't done in the form of writing on paper. The scirpt and lyrics would be considered literature. Note that i'm talking about the Manga here not the Anima of One piece.

The manga would be literature if you remove the illustrations and publish the text by itself.

The ratio of text to illustrations doesn't make it any less of a literary piece. Your definition is kinda pointlessly limiting.

It isn't about the ratio, it's about the fact that the text is dependent on the illustrations. It's only literature if it can exist independent of any accompaniment.

Which it does, Can and is. The illustrations are just tag along explanations for the narrative driven by mostly writing.