#(i mean okay technically i have one more baity ask i want to briefly respond to soon but that's not technically casca related)

[bthump]

I’m not coming from a place of hate at all, I enjoy your takes on Berserk homoeroticism and appreciate your refreshing ability to make well informed, intellectual analysis so accessible for other fans. It is an important resource to have when dudebros try to make their homophobic bias sound like good arguments. However, when it comes to your analysis of Casca, I find myself disagreeing with almost everything you say. I’m usually only reading your blog quietly because I enjoy the discourse, but I feel like I need to add my two cents. I agree that Cascas writing falls flat to a degree, but I can’t help but think that you’re downplaying her character and arc because you don’t enjoy the parts of Berserk that aren’t about homoerotic tension between Guts and Griffith. Their homoerotic tension is also what is most interesting to me, but it’s not what Berserk is inherently about. We could dismiss Casca by saying ˋMiura can’t write women´, but then again characters like Farnese exist who have an entire complex thematic arc tied to religious extremism, authoritarian character and freeing herself from dogmatism and Berserk as a story is not punishing her or asking for redemption and is instead inherently ridding itself from moralizing judgements of characters. She’s allowed to evolve by herself. As a queer person, I see myself in her. Theres so much queerness and comphet in her story, I’m sad that there’s not many meta posts about her on here. Does Berserk have ideological streaks of conservatism and misunderstands women because Miura has a misogynistic bias? Yeah, unfortunately. But the story and many of the main characters are too complex and ambiguous for me to write them all off based on how some of their arcs are not feminist enough and could need improving. Imagine writing such a complicated and long story with so many characters as just one simple Japanese dude who never leaves his house and who was born in the 70s or whatever. Like, I get separating the story from the author and impact versus intent, but dismissing Casca because of her flaws in writing is dismissing all of Berserk because of some thematic flaws. It sounds like you’re expecting the perfect story for her to be a valid female character and that’s just not possible. I for once made peace with her flaws and am not rejecting her. I think Cascas story works for what it is and I empathize with her as someone who has experienced misogyny and SA. Farny and Schierke working through her trauma magically was a nice metaphor for solidarity between women and it’s rare to see that coming from a male author, I don’t think it’s less valid just because Miura has some gender bias. Casca still experiencing PTSD afterwards is also realistic and shows that Miura is willing to give Casca enough agency to work through that by herself without magic some time in the future of the story. Her story is uncomfortable and her character arc is long and flawed, but that’s what makes it impossible for me to dismiss her. I’m a bit disappointed that so many fans on the tumblr side are willing to basically rid Griffith from all his wrongdoings but then empathize the flaws in Casca and don’t understand that maybe they also have some internalized misogyny that doesn’t make them understand that bias. Especially with the argument that I often see with She Should Have Died. Why? Because she’s uncomfortable? Maybe explore that within yourself. Other than that I am happy to have this queer part of the fandom where we don’t judge each other for liking Griffith and enjoying GriffGuts as a ship. And I hope that you don’t think too harshly of my criticism, for it is only to improve our fandom discourse culture and not to throw stones. Thank you for existing!

Okay look, while I do appreciate the appreciation for my non-casca blog content, I can't look past this coming hand in hand with a lot of pretty insulting, and frankly baseless assumptions about my motives. I'm glad you're not coming from a place of hate, but from the sounds of it you're coming from a place of presumptive judgement, and I want to address that.

I've always been very direct and clear about how I don't think someone's tastes or opinions about a story reflect on them personally. I don't judge someone's character by their fictional interests, I judge it by their words and actions.

If you're going to be interacting with my blog, I'd appreciate being extended the same benefit of the doubt.

You seem to see someone who doesn't enjoy Casca's storyline and make assumptions about why, rather than taking the reasons I provide at face value. I have explained why, very thoroughly, quite often, and quite recently, while constantly referring back to the text and to Miura's comments to justify my conclusions. I literally don't know how I can possibly be more direct about how I am discussing the narrative of a story on its own terms without going full dry academic language lol, come on.

I like to think I'm also very clear about when I'm expressing my subjective opinion (eg i dislike het romance; I'm super into romantic betrayal as a trope, etc) vs when I'm analysing the story based on direct textual evidence (eg casca has no active involvement in the narrative post-eclipse; casca's sexual abuse is eroticized; etc). I certainly try to be. And frankly it is genuinely pretty insulting that you think I'm incapable of judging Casca's story on its own merits or lackthereof, and must be over-emphasizing the flaws of her narrative because I only care about griffguts.

The truth is I genuinely believe that Griffith and Guts' relationship is the thematic core of Berserk, based on the text of the story, and I also genuinely believe Casca's storyline sucks ass in most ways. And it's okay to disagree with one or both of those takes, but yeah I'm gonna take a little bit of offense at the insinuation that I'm too biased by shipping or misogyny or both to analyse the story.

If you love Casca's story despite its flaws, good for you. I'm happy for you. I have no desire to argue with you to make you change your mind. And I don't think it makes you misogynist or ableist or racist, even though I think Casca's storyline contains all of the above to some degree - but if I was going to respond to you in the same vein that you've responded to me, that would be fair game as an assumption. It would also be fair game to assume that you only like Casca and are dismissive of or blind to many of the story's faults because you're projecting or you ship gtsca or you think good feminism is all about stanning certain designated fictional characters regardless of their actual depiction. And I think that is something wrong with fandom culture. I think those are all shitty assumptions to make about someone based on which fictional characters they enjoy reading about most. So like, straight up, you're the only one throwing stones here.

So I want to ask you: why is it that someone discussing offensive fictional tropes makes you assume they are the real misogynist? Why are you equating criticism of writing with criticism of real women, as though media trends and narrative framing don't exist? Why do you think it even matters if I "reject" a fictional character because I don't like how she's written lol?

This strikes me as the same line of thinking that leads to shutting down all criticism of misogyny in media - how dare you say this outfit is unrealistic for a martial artist, some women like to wear high heels! How dare you criticize the average husband/model-esque wife trope, some beautiful women love their average husbands! How dare you criticize comics for fridging the girlfriends of superheroes, women sometimes suffer horrible fates in real life! How dare you criticize the born sexy yesterday trope, some women are naive! etc etc etc.

And this is why it's important to have at least some understanding of narrative framing and greater media trends when discussing media on any level beyond headcanon and projection. Casca isn't real, and as a construct she is not a sensitive or realistic depiction of a traumatized woman, regardless of whether someone identifies with her. She's not a sensitive or realistic depiction of a disabled women either. There are literally "funny" cartoonish background gags involving her shoving random things into her mouth. She gets sexy fanservice while regressed to the mentality of a toddler. She is sexually assaulted by and then shipteased with the protagonist. I could go on all day lol, lbr here. I should not be obligated to brush all that aside and pretend it doesn't irritate me and sometimes offend me in order to valorize a woman who doesn't like, yk, exist.

You and anyone else are free to project on her and relate to her and sympathize with her and love her, and I think that's great and what fandom is all about, but that still doesn't make her writing strong. And I think it's worth discussing how and why her writing fails, the same way it's worth discussing any other flaw of Berserk, like Guts' character flattening with the Eclipse, or Farnese's sudden personality 180, or the awkward pacing, or the prominent scary black man trope, etc, all of which I've also discussed plenty. If you feel like I've disproportionately focused on Casca criticism, then there are 2 reasons for that: 1. I respond to asks 99% of the time, so it's what the people are asking about. 2. Casca's storyline is the most prominent bad and offensive writing in the story, like it's the number one thing that's likely to drive new potential fans away, so of course people are going to want to talk about it.

Also I've written like, a lot of meta and speculation and headcanons etc about Casca beyond criticism of her narrative lol, so if you're sad about the lack of discussion and meta about her it's ironic that you're coming to me with that complaint. Be the change you want to see in the world, start your own Casca centric blog if you want more meta about her to exist, or read more of what already exists. I'd say I'm doing my part as far as I'm concerned lol, but I don't like the way that phrasing implies that anyone has an obligation to focus their interest on any particular fictional character.

I'm glad you enjoy other aspects of my blog, and if you stick around after this admittedly irritable response I hope you continue enjoying them. But if you feel the need to engage with me to defend a fictional character from my criticism again in the future, I'd appreciate it if you engaged with that criticism directly and analytically, rather than speculating about my character and motives.