Controversial Is leaving everything vague good writing?
- Thread starter Stacks
- Start date
I know im getting tired of oda showing something for four panels and then waiting 100 chapters to show it again. I used to think that was great at one point. Now, at best its shoehorning.
IM has been introduced almost 5 years ago and makes up less than one chapter of screen time, but hes supposed to be a big bad?
Even shorter periods like law vs blackbeard. Im 1/5th as excited about that as i was when it first happened.
IM has been introduced almost 5 years ago and makes up less than one chapter of screen time, but hes supposed to be a big bad?
Even shorter periods like law vs blackbeard. Im 1/5th as excited about that as i was when it first happened.
Oda deserves a ton of credit for his ability to build a world, and he deserves an equal amount of criticism for not knowing how to satisfactorily flesh it out within a reasonable span of time. Teasing events and fights years in advance isn’t a great way to hold an audience captive, just because he’s retained a bunch of people doesn’t mean it’s all thanks to the quality of his under defined characters and still-unexplained lore 
Wanting to know everything all at once, is like playing a videogame, and wanting to hit max level as soon as possible. And then you do it, and the game gets boring, and you quit playing it.
For the most part It's about the execution, and payoff. Sometimes, somethings don't need to take years to reveal. That only serves to annoy the fandom, but guess what, it keeps them coming back.
So is it good writing? Yes and no. But one thing is undeniable. It's fucking effective in keep readers invested in the long haul.
For the most part It's about the execution, and payoff. Sometimes, somethings don't need to take years to reveal. That only serves to annoy the fandom, but guess what, it keeps them coming back.
So is it good writing? Yes and no. But one thing is undeniable. It's fucking effective in keep readers invested in the long haul.
In some cases yes, in some cases no
For example leaving things like Whitebeard’s backstory vague was great, because Whitebeard’s backstory was extremely unimportant compared to who Whitebeard became and what he represented in the modern day. If Oda wouldn’t have given us a Whitebeard backstory, then Whitebeard’s character would’ve never been assassinated which is what happened in Wano. We would all remember Marineford Whitebeard who was a fearless Chad and not Wano Whitebeard who was a sniveling fucking coward (yes I am in fact mad).
Leaving things like Joyboy’s backstory/life vague is bad because Luffy’s character arc is dependent on the reader actually knowing who Joyboy is and what he did so that we understand why Luffy is being compared to him, but Oda has thus far left Joyboy vague for completely incomprehensible reasons.
So being vague can be good or bad, Oda is just a uniquely terrible writer in that he is vague when he should not be and elaborates when he should leave shit vague.
For example leaving things like Whitebeard’s backstory vague was great, because Whitebeard’s backstory was extremely unimportant compared to who Whitebeard became and what he represented in the modern day. If Oda wouldn’t have given us a Whitebeard backstory, then Whitebeard’s character would’ve never been assassinated which is what happened in Wano. We would all remember Marineford Whitebeard who was a fearless Chad and not Wano Whitebeard who was a sniveling fucking coward (yes I am in fact mad).
Leaving things like Joyboy’s backstory/life vague is bad because Luffy’s character arc is dependent on the reader actually knowing who Joyboy is and what he did so that we understand why Luffy is being compared to him, but Oda has thus far left Joyboy vague for completely incomprehensible reasons.
So being vague can be good or bad, Oda is just a uniquely terrible writer in that he is vague when he should not be and elaborates when he should leave shit vague.
Leaving things vague can be good or bad.
Lots of horror writers will leave details of a certain event vague in order to get the reader's imagination going, which can be scarier than anything the author actually could have written.
A bad example would be not elaborating on the exact motivations of a certain character who's actions have a big rule on the story
Lots of horror writers will leave details of a certain event vague in order to get the reader's imagination going, which can be scarier than anything the author actually could have written.
A bad example would be not elaborating on the exact motivations of a certain character who's actions have a big rule on the story
Last edited:
He actually doesn't.....I think people say this because they have not read as many novels(honestly can pick up any Japanese LN or WN which is not even published and can find good world-building in that). Oda started with a good world, with good potential especially 20 years ago when there weren't as many in that regard. But the formula of his writing has been changed a long time ago...I think I can say it has not been the same since Skypeia at all. I can see one piece to be better as one of the novels, where they actually explore the world with adventures and explore and not have to follow/add kind of commercial aspect when writing chapters. I could see the whole series to be an adventure of the SHs while covering all the aspects of the one-piece world, which it currently isn't.
As folk have said, judge on a case by case basis.
As a general rule I don’t think authors should feel the need to explain every aspect of their work. We don’t need to know what Tom Bombadil is. For a One Piece equivalent, say, if we never find out what the Thriller Bark shadows are (I know folk think they are Zou’s herd) then I don’t have a problem with that. Preserve some of the mystery and the romance.
Other things we will need to find out. The history of the Void Century, for example. But note than in other series similar apocalyptic events have happened and we don’t need to find out the answer as to why. Like the Doom of Valyria in ASOIAF. Like I said, depends.
Character strength? Don’t reveal. Kills all powerlevel debate. You’ll get some answers through fights that actually happen, make up your own mind for other stuff, see if you can be convinced. Nothing would be worse than Oda coming out with One Piece scouter powerlevels and revealing that Whitebeard is a 1405 and Kaido a 1365.
As a general rule I don’t think authors should feel the need to explain every aspect of their work. We don’t need to know what Tom Bombadil is. For a One Piece equivalent, say, if we never find out what the Thriller Bark shadows are (I know folk think they are Zou’s herd) then I don’t have a problem with that. Preserve some of the mystery and the romance.
Other things we will need to find out. The history of the Void Century, for example. But note than in other series similar apocalyptic events have happened and we don’t need to find out the answer as to why. Like the Doom of Valyria in ASOIAF. Like I said, depends.
Character strength? Don’t reveal. Kills all powerlevel debate. You’ll get some answers through fights that actually happen, make up your own mind for other stuff, see if you can be convinced. Nothing would be worse than Oda coming out with One Piece scouter powerlevels and revealing that Whitebeard is a 1405 and Kaido a 1365.
If by "Vague" what you mean if not knowing every single information about a character/event/place/etc, then that is not possible. By that definition essentially all literature is vague, since every single detail cannot be shared.
What Oda does is leave the outcomes vague, until he's ready to reveal them later down the line.
Sabo incident at the reverie - Left vague as to what could've happened, and then later down the line he sheds light on it.
In story time it's only been few weeks at best since the reverie, so not much time has passed. This Blackbeard vs Law / Shanks vs Kid aren't vague, he just switched from them and will just show us the results.
I think what he does in terms of stating an X event happened, and then reveal the results of it later down the line is fine, as those are side events. Even though some of them are more interesting. But the story he wants to write on is Luffy as the main piece, so all of those events will be left that way. He's not writing a story like KINGDOM where Shin is the MC, but you have characters who get their own arcs without Shin even being involved.
It's what comes with the territory of writing this type of a story. Now if one piece history/character strengths are left vague by end of the manga, then sure that's an issue. But we're far from the end.
What Oda does is leave the outcomes vague, until he's ready to reveal them later down the line.
Sabo incident at the reverie - Left vague as to what could've happened, and then later down the line he sheds light on it.
In story time it's only been few weeks at best since the reverie, so not much time has passed. This Blackbeard vs Law / Shanks vs Kid aren't vague, he just switched from them and will just show us the results.
I think what he does in terms of stating an X event happened, and then reveal the results of it later down the line is fine, as those are side events. Even though some of them are more interesting. But the story he wants to write on is Luffy as the main piece, so all of those events will be left that way. He's not writing a story like KINGDOM where Shin is the MC, but you have characters who get their own arcs without Shin even being involved.
It's what comes with the territory of writing this type of a story. Now if one piece history/character strengths are left vague by end of the manga, then sure that's an issue. But we're far from the end.