In-depth · Legacy & retrospective · No spoilers
Berserk is being continued by Studio Gaga under Kouji Mori’s supervision following Kentaro Miura’s death. The team has the author’s conversations and surviving materials, but no finished version of the remaining manga to draw from. OtaHub sees understanding what the team has, and what it cannot replace, as the fairest way to approach the continuation.
Quick facts about the team continuing Berserk
| Original work | Kentaro Miura |
|---|---|
| Manga | Studio Gaga, Miura’s assistants |
| Supervision | Kouji Mori, Miura’s close friend and fellow manga artist |
| Return | June 24, 2022, in Young Animal |
| Basis | Miura’s conversations, collaborators’ memories, idea memos and character designs |
How did Berserk return after Miura’s death?
Kentaro Miura died on May 6, 2021. Hakusensha announced his death on May 20, with his story unfinished. For readers, this raised two separate questions: would Berserk continue, and who had a basis for continuing it?
On June 7, 2022, the publisher announced its return. The June 24 issue of Young Animal credited three roles: original work by Kentaro Miura, manga by Studio Gaga and supervision by Kouji Mori. So this is a continuation inside the series’ own publishing framework, not a fan project.
Separating those roles tells readers whose work they are holding. Miura remains Berserk’s creator, while another team turns the remaining story into manga pages. The credits do not claim the new chapters were drawn by Miura, and they do not erase where the story came from.
The description of Volume 42’s English edition from Dark Horse likewise identifies Studio Gaga working under Mori’s supervision. A short answer to “who writes and draws it now?” therefore needs to include the team, rather than treating Mori as someone who has taken over every task.
Mori and Studio Gaga have different responsibilities
Mori supervises the story. In his 2022 message, he said Miura had told him its course through the ending, and that the two of them also continued discussing major developments. According to Mori, he was the person to whom Miura had told the story in its entirety.
This explains why he matters to the continuation’s direction. But he explicitly distinguishes knowing where the story goes from being able to make manga like Miura, since how a story reads also depends on staging, expressions, composition and pauses on the page.
Studio Gaga turns that story into manga. Its members assisted Miura, so they know his working methods. In his message, Mori described seeing the assistants complete the final manuscript and then agreeing to continue with them.
You do not need to speculate about meeting schedules or individual page approvals to understand this division. Public information shows two complementary roles, with Mori supervising the story that was shared and the studio producing its manga form. Drawing therefore involves more than copying an earlier artist’s lines.
What did Miura leave behind?
Young Animal’s announcement says Miura discussed ideas with Mori, studio staff and his editor. These were ordinary working conversations, not necessarily instructions for a future without him. The publisher also found idea memos and character designs.
This is separate from Mori’s statement that he knows the entire story. Mori has a particular position in knowing its course through the ending, while others retain memories of ideas, scenes and characters discussed with Miura. These accounts do not contradict each other.
However, the team does not have complete rough drafts for the remaining story. Such drafts sketch how events appear on the page, including panels, images and transitions. A note that an event happens is not the same as a full set of manga pages for another artist to finish.
OtaHub sees this as the distinction readers most easily overlook. Assuming a complete manuscript exists treats the team as simply finishing it. Assuming only one person’s memories remain overlooks the materials and contributions of Miura’s other collaborators.
What are the limits of Mori’s promise?
Mori pledged to work only on episodes Miura had described, excluding those he could not clearly remember. This restricts the continuation, and it is not an announcement that he will invent a new direction for Guts and Griffith, the series’ two central characters.
A principle does not produce a page by itself. Translating a verbally described scene into manga still requires concrete choices. A glance, the distance between characters or the time spent on a reaction affects how readers experience it.
Two standards therefore need separating. One is preserving events according to what Miura said, and the other is reproducing the reading experience exactly as he would. The team can commit to the first, but knowing the ending cannot guarantee the second.
The publisher acknowledged in its return announcement that it cannot perfectly recreate a manuscript as Miura would have intended. OtaHub believes that admission belongs in any introduction to the continuation. It gives readers grounds for expectations without pretending the creative process is unchanged.
How should readers assess the continuation?
You can still ask concrete questions: is a scene clear, are the characters’ emotions convincing, and do the images make the action understandable? These can be assessed on the page. You do not need access to all of Miura’s notes to say a passage moved you or was difficult to follow.
Conversely, claiming that a detail definitely contradicts his wishes requires evidence about what he intended. Comparing earlier chapters can reveal differences in presentation, but difference alone does not establish that the team changed an event he had described.
OtaHub’s recommendation is to identify what you are judging. “This scene lacks emotional weight for me” evaluates a reading experience. “Miura would never have written this” makes a claim about an author who can no longer answer. The evidence required is very different.
Another view
Some readers want to leave Berserk where Miura stopped, because his drawing and storytelling are why they love it. The continuation’s official basis does not require them to feel it replaces that experience. This is an understandable reading choice.
Others want to discover where the story Miura shared leads, even if its presentation cannot be identical. Mori’s account and the publisher’s decision give that approach a basis. It does not require readers to overlook weaknesses in new chapters.
OtaHub favors continuing to read while assessing each chapter’s execution. Respect for Miura and the team should not oblige readers to praise everything, and grief alone is not enough to dismiss Studio Gaga’s contributions.
In conclusion
Berserk continues through collaboration between Mori, Studio Gaga and the publisher, drawing on Miura’s conversations and surviving materials. Its strength is the team’s direct relationship with the creator and a stated principle for continuing. Its limit is the absence of complete rough drafts and the impossibility of replacing all of Miura’s creative decisions.
Even publishing the final chapter would not by itself prove that every detail matches his intentions. Readers can judge how convincing the story is, alongside the team’s transparency about the basis of its work.
Frequently asked questions
Who is drawing Berserk now?
Studio Gaga produces the manga under Kouji Mori’s supervision. Kentaro Miura remains credited for the original work.
Did Miura leave a complete manuscript for the ending?
The 2022 announcement identifies idea memos and character designs, but says complete rough drafts for the continuation were not left behind.
Does Mori know Berserk’s ending?
In his 2022 message, Mori said Miura had told him the story through its ending. This does not mean he can reproduce the manga exactly as Miura would.
Sources: Hakusensha: resumption announcement and Mori’s message (7 June 2022); Hakusensha: Young Animal’s 24 June 2022 issue; Hakusensha: announcement of Miura’s death; Dark Horse Manga / Penguin Random House: Berserk Volume 42.
