Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Characters / BerserkBandOfTheHawk

Go To

Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Caution: I'm going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
to:
Caution: I\\\'m going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
[[spoiler:Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it's cool if people who haven't read the novel get there by themselves, and it's obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.]]
to:
[[spoiler:Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it\\\'s cool if people who haven\\\'t read the novel get there by themselves, and it\\\'s obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Caution: I'm going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
to:
Caution: I\'m going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
[spoiler]Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it's cool if people who haven't read the novel get there by themselves, and it's obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.[/spoiler]
to:
[[spoiler:Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it\'s cool if people who haven\'t read the novel get there by themselves, and it\'s obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Caution: I'm going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it's cool if people who haven't read the novel get there by themselves, and it's obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.
to:
Caution: I\'m going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.

[spoiler]Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it\'s cool if people who haven\'t read the novel get there by themselves, and it\'s obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.[/spoiler]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Caution: I'm going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
.
.
.
Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it's cool if people who haven't read the novel get there by themselves, and it's obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.
to:
Caution: I\'m going to discuss spoilers from the book, specifically concerning one character.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Should we really give Low Key a MeaningfulName? I mean, it\'s cool if people who haven\'t read the novel get there by themselves, and it\'s obviously not even the most important twist about the character, but it feels a little like purposefully spoiling something for non-readers.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The way i see it, the numbers might have been made up by some editor at hakusensha rather than Miura himself, and maybe he didn't contradict them because he was never too sure himself. It's an established fact that Casca was 12 when Griffith found her, she said so herself. She doesn't explicitly say Griffith was older than her, but it's heavily implied. I think six years older than Casca is too much, but if he's not at least two years older than her, it beggars belief that he would already be leading a group of bandits when she meets him. He sure looked at least older than 13 when he found her. The kids i can believe, but I'm gonna make it fanon that the two years didn't count and Griffith is chronologically 26.
to:
The way i see it, the numbers might have been made up by some editor at hakusensha rather than Miura himself, and maybe he didn\'t contradict them because he was never too sure himself. It\'s an established fact that Casca was 12 when Griffith found her, she said so herself. She doesn\'t explicitly say Griffith was older than her, but it\'s heavily implied. I think six years older than Casca is too much, but if he\'s not at least two years older than her, it beggars belief that he would already be leading a group of bandits when she meets him. He sure looked at least older than 13 when he found her. The kids i can believe, but I\'m gonna make it my head-canon that the two years didn\'t count and Griffith is chronologically 26.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The way i see it, the numbers might have been made up by some editor at hakusensha rather than Miura himself, and maybe he didn't contradict them because he was never to sure himself. It's an established fact that Casca was 12 when Griffith found her, she said so herself. She doesn't explicitly say Griffith was older than her, but it's heavily implied. I think six years older than Casca is too much, but if he's not at least two years older than her, it beggars belief that he would be leading a group of bandits. He sure looked at least older than 13 when he found her. The kids i can believe, but I'm gonna make it fanon that the two years didn't count and Griffith is chronologically 26.
to:
The way i see it, the numbers might have been made up by some editor at hakusensha rather than Miura himself, and maybe he didn\'t contradict them because he was never too sure himself. It\'s an established fact that Casca was 12 when Griffith found her, she said so herself. She doesn\'t explicitly say Griffith was older than her, but it\'s heavily implied. I think six years older than Casca is too much, but if he\'s not at least two years older than her, it beggars belief that he would already be leading a group of bandits when she meets him. He sure looked at least older than 13 when he found her. The kids i can believe, but I\'m gonna make it fanon that the two years didn\'t count and Griffith is chronologically 26.
Top