By differences I'm not going to talk about the obvious ones, I'm going to talk about the way the story is told and how things are revealed throughout the story.
Summary:
Anyway, I just wanted to explain my thoughts when comparing these 2 mangas because while they are both highly successful mangas I feel that the level of depth of story differs greatly between them and creates a completely different community of discussion based on them. Thoughts, comments, concerns, suggestions?
We are all very familiar with Naruto and how Kishi goes about telling it. If we can say anything for certain, its that Kishi is unpredictable. Can anyone say they truly expected the manga to be where its at now? I think not. But in addition to being unpredictable, Kishi is also historically inconsistent. I don't want people to take this the wrong way, but its true. It is extremely common on NB to see threads about plot holes and mistakes in Naruto. Now while these threads are common, most claims of 'plot hole' are unfounded and not accurate. But if you ask me, there are however, at least 1 or 2 true plot holes in the Naruto story. Others may claim there are more, but I don't think its necessarily true.
The point I'm trying to make with this is that, at the very least, Kishi creates circumstances to where he is setting himself up to be criticized. Now its not that he has created various plotholes, but he has certainly created various circumstances that cause people to question his work. And if a writer is consistently creating situations that cause his readers to question his work, is he truly going about things the right way? Now I know I will get flack like 'Well why don't you try making your own manga and see if you can do better?', or 'Well then why don't you stop reading the manga?', but I'm simply accessing Kishi's way of story telling and comparing it to another author. With that, I want to talk about Bleach a little bit.
The point I'm trying to make with this is that, at the very least, Kishi creates circumstances to where he is setting himself up to be criticized. Now its not that he has created various plotholes, but he has certainly created various circumstances that cause people to question his work. And if a writer is consistently creating situations that cause his readers to question his work, is he truly going about things the right way? Now I know I will get flack like 'Well why don't you try making your own manga and see if you can do better?', or 'Well then why don't you stop reading the manga?', but I'm simply accessing Kishi's way of story telling and comparing it to another author. With that, I want to talk about Bleach a little bit.
Now when it comes to the popular manga titles of our age, Bleach's writer Kubo has the infamous reputation of being a troll. Now why is he considered a troll? I guess its mostly the way he will often leave a chapter with a cliff hanger and not come back to the issue several chapters later. He goes about things his own way and some people don't like it. But in all honesty, can any Bleach reader ever say in a million years that Bleach has any plotholes? Please rack your brain and tell me with a straight face that you can claim Bleach has even 1 plothole. I think you'd be hard-pressed to do so. The reason you can't is because Kubo has never introduced anything that conflicts with what he's already revealed.
Now the primary reason for this is that Kubo has simply been very vague with the details of his manga. Many things he reveals seem out of left field because its a topic he never really covered or only quickly passed over without revealing much. In addition, while its very common for him to give his characters upgrades, they don't really break any rules of his manga because, honestly, he has left his manga world open to almost any possibility. The point here is that Kubo will often leave things extremely vague or unexplored so that when he later sheds light on the topic, you honestly have no room to question it.
Now the primary reason for this is that Kubo has simply been very vague with the details of his manga. Many things he reveals seem out of left field because its a topic he never really covered or only quickly passed over without revealing much. In addition, while its very common for him to give his characters upgrades, they don't really break any rules of his manga because, honestly, he has left his manga world open to almost any possibility. The point here is that Kubo will often leave things extremely vague or unexplored so that when he later sheds light on the topic, you honestly have no room to question it.
In conclusion, I guess what I'm saying is that Kishi is a much more detail-oriented writer than Kubo. While Kishi undoubtedly had the major plotlines of his story figured out from day one, he is very likely guilty of changing things along the way. The more detailed he made his story, the more complicated it became for him to make small story changes down the line. In at least one or two cases, I feel this has created a true plot hole in the story. This is in addition dozens of lines of story that might not be plot holes but are at the very least questionable decisions on Kishi's part and might have benefited from better planning. While some people consider Kubo to be a troll in Bleach, he is certainly not guilty of creating plot holes and has achieved that by keeping his manga generally simple, thus creating no real room to question his work when new things are revealed.
Summary:
The meaning of this thread was to compare two very popular mangas created by two very different writers. I feel that while Kishi's work is very good and worthy of praise, it contains numerous examples of questionable lines of plot that cause people to question his work. Most of these inconsistences can be explained and are not true plot holes. But can you look at all these instances that cause people to question it and say that there is not at least something wrong about the writing? Surely Kishi could have changed some things to not create so much controversy. I feel that this is largely a result of over-complication of his manga. By adding more and more depth as the story went on, Kishi made it more and more difficult to keep things in one consistent line. I think he eventually strayed from this line and we are seeing the results of it.
I feel this differs greatly from a writer like Kubo who may get flack for trolling his readers, but never creates instances that make his readers question his work. I think he owes this largely to the simplicity of the manga he created (when compared to Naruto). He wrote his manga in such a way that whenever something new is revealed, there is truly no significant room to question things and call 'plot hole'. He simply never introduces anything that could contradict his own story.
I feel this differs greatly from a writer like Kubo who may get flack for trolling his readers, but never creates instances that make his readers question his work. I think he owes this largely to the simplicity of the manga he created (when compared to Naruto). He wrote his manga in such a way that whenever something new is revealed, there is truly no significant room to question things and call 'plot hole'. He simply never introduces anything that could contradict his own story.
Anyway, I just wanted to explain my thoughts when comparing these 2 mangas because while they are both highly successful mangas I feel that the level of depth of story differs greatly between them and creates a completely different community of discussion based on them. Thoughts, comments, concerns, suggestions?
