How do i write a fantasy story without making it sound like a edgy autistic fanfic

How do i write a fantasy story without making it sound like a edgy autistic fanfic

I tried getting into bezerk, but the art from the first volumes is atrocious, and although the art later on looks great and has that "lovecraftian" horror feel, I still cant get past those first issues.

Read great literature, and try to absorb their style and sense of humanity. If you read intelligently and sensitively, you will absorb the maturity and naturally become a better writer. Well, you won't become a master just from reading a few books of course, but some aspects will rub off on you and keep you from writing an edgy autistic fanfic, which is usually written that way because the author grew up on shallow entertainment and wouldn't know aesthetic greatness if they were standing in the Sistine Chapel.

Dude, Go directly to the golden arc. It's the right chronological order anyway.

>without making it sound like a edgy autistic fanfic
you're not ready

it fucking sucks anyway

only worth it for the character of The Count, for griffith's characterization and as a visual work of art later

drop it after The Count imo

the eclipse is boring and not worth it. ooooohh no all these cardboard chracters dying or getting raped im so emotionally numb

Lad there were at least 6 memebrs from the band of the hawk that got decent characterization.

no there werent. being "silent guy" or "guy who said a few quips and now at the end we find out he liked casca" or "guy who says rude and sometimes funny stuff" aint good characterization. none of them had depth. casca had some but she was pretty much a stock character. guts' characterization was 70% "muh rape" (and it can actually, really be reduced to that memey phrase because it was never, ever developed further or dealt with further than "muh rape"). there was also some bits with griffith that made guts passably interesting during the midland part.

griffith was actually quite original and the count was fuckin tragic

become a kid again
have fun

What about the guy who survived and makes cool weapons now?

>again
It's the OP who never grew up.

Berserk is horrible. Berserk was the nail in the coffin for me when I decided to see if any of this weeb shit would end up being good.

This question is relevant to my interests.

I think I'm going to read some Gene Wolfe and see if he manages to do it, I know I liked him when I was a kid.

Does everyone have to be ''''''deep'''''' in your modern sense?

You cannot accept a character that lives for someone else's purpose/dream without needing to have some kind of existential guilt or ulterior motive? The characterization of the key Hawk members was just fine and it's actually this lack of ulterior motive or personal aspirations that gives the eclipse it's justification. The egg shaped apostle is also the best part of the manga.

>The characterization of the key Hawk members was just fine and it's actually this lack of ulterior motive or personal aspirations that gives the eclipse it's justification.

while this is quite true as written, it could've been written differently. perhaps each of those members could've instead actually had their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations but griffith becomes so isolated from them that he forgets what they were, and then questions whether they had any at all. as written, that justification always made the band of the hawk look stupid imo.

i dont think every character has to have huge depth but for the amount of time these chracters were in the story it strikes you when they're getting killed off and your reaction is "meh"

>The egg shaped apostle is also the best part of the manga.

and yeah i dont remember hating the conviction arc. i think i thought that one was cool, though i cant remember much of it

Your thinking is just a little too modern. The idea that living for anyone else's goal but your own makes you look stupid is one that won't allow you to respect the members of the band of the hawk.

They basically gave you 4 archetypes of fierce loyalty outside of Casca. Corkus who is the most individualistic, not necessarily a free thinker but wants more out of life than just Griffith's success; wants to have wealth and accolades of his own but needs Griffith to get there and wants Griffith to be king as much as he wants himself to have status. Judeau, I have to admit his love for Caska comes out of left field a bit but it explains why someone with his characterization (cynical, trickster) would devote himself to the cause, he's basically there to be a tragic member because he has an ulterior motive that is just as selfless but more futile than the rest. Pippin is literally uncomplicated loyalty and devotion and Rickert is potential. Doubt I've said anything you didn't already know but I find that this 'fill in the gaps yourself' works better. Compare Serpico who has a fleshed out backstory to the band of the hawk members. I think it would have been a mistake to show flashbacks of the band of the hawk members childhoods like was done with Caska.

Oh and the other thing is, changing it to Griffith forgetting their other motivation wouldn't really work because it would get rid of the major conundrum. That being, is sacrificing these people any different than having them die in battle? Why is it that every member would risk their lives in battle and would willingly die for Griffith but ill fight against being sacrificed?

I agree with this statement.

Taste has to be cultivated, it can't be forced.

Because sacrifices are about the symbolism.

Griffith had to sacrifice not only his men, but their loyalty to and love for him.

Getting them all killed conventionally would have just made him a shitty general.

Ok, which opens up a question of what their loyalty is contingent upon. If sacrificing betrays their loyalty to his dream then what is their loyalty based on? Then there's also his consideration of everyone who died along the way to get to that point and how he'd be betraying their sacrifice if he let his dream die there.