JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 201 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62934724 12-17-2011 06:36 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: Wow, that was a very interesting and thoughtful analysis. :) So...I hate to tell you, but there are two problems. First is that according to his editor, the title is The Door that Must Not Be Opened, and the second is that we learned the whole story from Sobotka in Chapter 17, so we do know what's behind the door and why it must never be opened. Essentially it's the story of Bonaparta and Anna and the Red Rose Mansion massacre (prior to his carrying out his plan). Oh no! :D I really should read the previous chapters over again, shouldn't I? Haha, I apologize for feeding you inane theories from my crazed teenage brain! It seems that most, if not all, have been answered by the creator himself. Ah well, thank you for the compliment on my analysis :D. And I just read the chapter over (slowly, this time, so that I do not make another mistake :)), and I too saw it as a story of Bonaparta's emotional journey with Anna. I'm curious as to what you think of the story's ending though. I think his fantasy that she forgave him is sad and pathetic, but it answers your musing about him rejecting forgiveness. But is the speck of Darkness remaining within The Queen Bonaparta's wish that she carry him with her in her heart, or his acknowledgement that he's forever stained her perfect light, or something else? Well, as you say, it could very well be a wish of Bonaparta's that his darkness taints her, and I have a feeling that this "speck of darkness" is, in fact, the darkness of revenge that Anna harbors, and will continue to harbor. Love and hatred are opposites, both are extraordinarily powerful emotions. It is possible that Bonaparta's wish (which, apparently, seems to have come true) is that he has Anna's hate, since he cannot have her love. Her revenge has morphed her into a creature of pure loathing, when directed at Bonaparta of course. And people rarely forget about those they despise...Another instance, it seems, where memories hold magnificent importance. So, in short, the darkness within her, in my humble opinion, is there purposefully, and in reality, forgiveness is not what he seeks from her. He wants her memory of him to carry on through her children, so that he may face her judgement, albeit indirectly, in both love and repentance. Haha, I hope that made sense. And where is the Door (that leads to the Room of True Darkness)? Is it in Bonaparta, or Anna, or is it the door that hides the truth of what happened? How does opening this door and letting in the light spark a new war between light and darkness? We usually think of shedding light on things as a means of purification, but Bonaparta seems to think it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. Hmm, that is interesting that the "placement" of the door is within a human being... :) Yes, I think I agree with that. And I would argue that the door could be located in either of the two, but I think I will lean towards Bonaparta, though the explanation would be far more self-explanitory than Anna's. However, I do prefer Anna's case, as her memories were erased, though she seems to recall them briefly from time to time. In this, the door hides the horrors, of both the experiment and her unfortunate choice of giving up one of her children. Light, though it could be a form of purification, could also be interpreted as acknowledgement. And acknowledgement involves facing the terrors of the past, and re-absorbing them. And I think it is very much in-character for Bonaparta, who loves Anna dearly, to feel that these memories in particluar are better left in the dark. Otherwise, it would spark a war, a war between Anna's own lightness and darkness, as she herself was never wholly pure. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 202 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62935804 12-17-2011 07:15 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: Ok, first I would need a lot more details to convince me that Johann wrote "The Awakening Monster." Really, it's just too far-fetched to me that after all these years he suddenly decides to write a picture book for the first time, and to do it in Bonaparta's art style of all things. Just not buying it. :D :D Yes, it is a bit far-fetched, I agree. But I personally don't think that it would be out of place. I stated in previous posts in this thread that Johan imitating Bonaparta's style (and in a sense, his life) would follow the trend of people emulating their parental figures. Though Johan is not at all fond of Bonaparta (quite the understatement :D), it would not prevent his transformation into the person who has been the most prominent in his life. The same occurred to Bonaparta, so I personally do not think this is as impossible as it seems. I also don't think Fuer has transformed himself into Johann - whoever is in the sketch is not a 50-something man, and if Fuer could do that, forget picture books and manipulation, he'd be able to rule the world with whatever technique he used to look 30 years younger. ;) Haha, very true, Fuer would not be able to physically de-age himself. However, I merely mentioned the "transformation" in a figurative sense. Fuer has taken on Johan's purpose (or lack of purpose :)), and has now become "the other monster". And there in lies the significance of Weber's sketch. I have a feeling that there is something in the Book of Revelations regarding a second resurrection of the Antichrist, though I am unsure. This so-called "re-awakening" of Johan's may, in theory, come in the form of one Hermann Fuer. I like your reasoning behind thinking the twin really is dead, but the main thing keeping me on the side that she's alive is Hana's testimony that Anna thinks she's alive and isn't crazy. As you said, "I personally believe that such a seemingly insignifcant detail would not be included if it did not hold some amount of importance." Urasawa is notorious for his callbacks, and this one doesn't even seem like it's insignificant at the time, unlike his first mention of The Third Man. :D Hmm, I see. I'm afraid that I will have to read Hana's interview once again, but perhaps you could briefly clarify for me. Is Hana saying that she believes that the twin is alive, or is she saying that Anna does? Because the twin could be alive, but in the sense that the twin's life is carried on through Anna herself... :D The term "alive" is much more ambiguous than I'd like to think, but Urasawa does seem to love his ambiguity! I would argue that Johan's mother herself lacked the mental concept of "living", just as her son did. In Urasawa's world, the physical sense of the word ceases to exist. Another case of the subjective winning out against the objective. JohanT wrote: I'm sure this has been acknowledged before, but there is a difference between the dub and the manga English translation, specifically in Johan's last line. The term in the manga is, I believe, "unwanted", whereas the word used in the dub was "need". This has no doubt been addressed, but "need" could imply the mother's wish to use one of the twins to exact revenge on Bonaparta. And perhaps, by choosing a twin to go with him, that twin, who would be subjected to horror and cruelty, would in turn develop a more potent grudge, a vicious need to have vengeance. In this, we can see the worth of the twins individually assessed. Which one was most likely to accomplish her goal? Now, this could go both ways, depending on Johan's mother's thought process. The twin chosen to go could be the most loved because he/she would kill Bonaparta. Or, the twin chosen to stay could be the most loved because Johan's mother wished to protect him/her from such a tragic hero-like fate. It would all depend on the mother's perspective of revenge, and whether or not she regarded murder as harmful to her child's well-being... We did bat it around at the end of the Sci-Fi run, but now that I'm slightly more knowledgable about Japanese than I was then, I can say with certainty that the word Johann uses when speaking to Tenma in the anime is "need" (どち...いらなかったの = dochi...ira na katta no = which one...was not needed). Also, it's the same word he used as a child when telling Dinger that "such people aren't needed" (いらないよ). For what it's worth, the Spanish tl of Dinger's story used the verb sobrar, to be leftover, surplus, extra, rather than necesario. Oh, your observation with Dinger is very telling! I will elaborate in a later post, though, I'm afraid that my brain has temporarily stopped churning out new theories and ideas! I suppose I should attempt to focus this much on my homework :D. I was thinking along the same lines as you, but came to the opposite conclusion, that maybe she saved Johann because she thought as a boy he'd be more capable of exacting her revenge. But since we don't even know whether she could tell them apart for sure (you'd think a mother would know, but some have speculated she dressed them alike not only to hide their being twins, but to blind herself to which was which), it's pretty much impossible to know why she changed her mind at the last second. As far as "the most loved," well, since I think Fuer wrote the story, and he wasn't privy to this incident in Johann's life, I think it refers to Johann as the one all the neo-Nazis and Communists were pinning their hopes on as the new leader to dominate the world (although the story shows that there are many kinds of love and many people who are well-loved, none of those kinds of love work in awakening the monster - as cynical a view as I would expect from Fuer). One reading of the latter part of the story could be that the mother lost her son when he (the boy in the story) went on his quest to find the name of the most loved person, not realizing how loved he himself was (but wouldn't she recognize him when he came back? Wouldn't he recognize his own mother?). But another could be Anna not knowing what had happened to Johann after Ruhenheim (he was "spirited away"). Very interesting! Are you perhaps insinuating that, in Fuer's eyes, the only love that is worthy of being called "true love" is that of a mother for her child? I find it very interesting that this type of love released the monster from its sleeping state. I saw it as poisonous, as rabid. As, in a sense, worthy of being truly unworthy. And going back to my original statements, Johan rejects his name, he rejects identity. And as such, he remains nameless, just as he was before. Again, there is not much of difference between the endings of The Nameless Monster and The Awakened Monster, at least in my eyes. So, an important question to pose is: Is Johan rejecting the name of the one most loved in fear that it will not be his own, or that it will be his own, but not that of his sister? Who truly is the one most loved? And, in reality, will knowing be of any benefit? I think those questions are rather important to consider :D. Remember back in Erna Tietze's chapter (5), she described little Anna as talking to herself in Czech, carrying on conversations, and then telling her that Johann had decided to leave K511 the day before the massacre. If these kids were that linked, imagine what it would be like when she was under the stress of the RRM. I would think that not only was Johann hearing her pour her heart out to him describing what she'd been through, but was also feeling her broadcasting her emotions about it too. Perhaps he'd been experiencing it with her all along, just as she had when Johann was in K511. In other words, he may not have had a choice about taking on her memories as his own. (that's my WMG for the day ;) ) Very true! :D |
||
GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 203 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62938458 12-17-2011 07:32 PM Don't worry about it. This is why you have to re-read/watch Urasawa's stuff over and over again. I didn't think about rechecking on the need/want issue (or how it was said in Dinger's story) until you brought it up again, so now I have another answer I didn't have before. And I keep discovering new things while re-reading AM too, or seeing things I thought my mind was settled on in a new light. While you're waiting for replies, you can read over the discussions to date here and in the other Monster threads, and read AM again. Never a dull moment! ;) I am quite satisfied with your interpretations except for the point about forgiveness. I do think he wanted her forgiveness, even if he didn't expect to receive it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have put it in that story. I suspect that when he told the editor about it, he hadn't fully formed the story, just had the notion of it, and then fleshed it out when telling the children. If that's the case, then I think his longing for forgiveness found its way into the story, but by the time he reached the end, he decided it was better for her to just leave that door closed, for her own sake. I haven't decided what to make about Anna's memory loss. You and, I think, Toph have suggested that he tampered with her memory before releasing her, but I've always had the impression that it's a combination of aging and repression. :) Maybe she opens that door a little now and then, but seeing the darkness of her hatred within, she closes it right back up again. Which is pretty much what you said. :) |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 204 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62938924 12-17-2011 08:13 PM JohanT wrote: Very interesting! Are you perhaps insinuating that, in Fuer's eyes, the only love that is worthy of being called "true love" is that of a mother for her child? I find it very interesting that this type of love released the monster from its sleeping state. I saw it as poisonous, as rabid. As, in a sense, worthy of being truly unworthy. And going back to my original statements, Johan rejects his name, he rejects identity. And as such, he remains nameless, just as he was before. Again, there is not much of difference between the endings of The Nameless Monster and The Awakened Monster, at least in my eyes. So, an important question to pose is: Is Johan rejecting the name of the one most loved in fear that it will not be his own, or that it will be his own, but not that of his sister? Who truly is the one most loved? And, in reality, will knowing be of any benefit? I think those questions are rather important to consider :D. No, that wasn't what I was getting at at all. :) I meant that none of the other kinds of love could awaken the monster, only the rather cold, manipulative love of the people who worshiped Johann and called out to him to be their new Führer. Remember that the reason the boy wanted to wake the sleeping monster was that he was unhappy and the rumors promised that whoever awoke it could rule the world. Within my pet theory, I also see the boy's forgetting his quest and becoming happy, and then finding the mother in a remote village as suggesting that the "other Johann" found Anna, and learned of her love for her son, and then went to awaken our Johann. But Fuer realizes that eventually the awakened Johann will destroy the wannabe ruler. OR...if no such other exists, then perhaps it's autobiographical, and Fuer is the boy who sought world domination, but tired of the quest and contented himself with all those around him who were loved, until he encountered Johann, and was reminded who was most loved and why. Having the same name is perhaps a metaphor for being alike and having similar roots, and to Fuer's mind, similar goals. In this scenario he either awakened him, despite knowing he would be devoured by him (like Bonaparta told Anna she had devoured him), and it is Johann in the sketch (but that brings me back to why a sketch and not a note saying, "Gah! It's Johann!!"?). Or the monster sleeping is a metaphor for the monster sleeping within Fuer, sharing the same name signifies they are one and the same, and once awakened, he was devoured by it, and is now on a monstrous path because of that. There, that should keep your mind busy for awhile. ;) |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 205 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62939160 12-18-2011 05:41 AM GinaSzamboti wrote: Don't worry about it. This is why you have to re-read/watch Urasawa's stuff over and over again. I didn't think about rechecking on the need/want issue (or how it was said in Dinger's story) until you brought it up again, so now I have another answer I didn't have before. And I keep discovering new things while re-reading AM too, or seeing things I thought my mind was settled on in a new light. While you're waiting for replies, you can read over the discussions to date here and in the other Monster threads, and read AM again. Never a dull moment! ;) Yes, I admittedly have not read this thread in its entirety. Sorry if some of my responses seem like repetition of what others have said :D. I am quite satisfied with your interpretations except for the point about forgiveness. I do think he wanted her forgiveness, even if he didn't expect to receive it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have put it in that story. I suspect that when he told the editor about it, he hadn't fully formed the story, just had the notion of it, and then fleshed it out when telling the children. If that's the case, then I think his longing for forgiveness found its way into the story, but by the time he reached the end, he decided it was better for her to just leave that door closed, for her own sake. Oh, sorry, I don't think I was very clear with that statement of mine. I do think he wanted her forgiveness, but he did not actively seek it, for, as you say, her sake and the fact that he did not expect to earn it. It was wishful thinking on his part, though I doubt he ever truly looked for ways to better himself in her eyes. I can see yet another comparison between Bonaparta and Johan in this specific aspect. Bonaparta does not expect forgiveness from Anna, and Johan does not expect forgiveness from Nina. Yet Johan is forgiven, but he denies this chance of possible redemption. Do you think that Bonaparta as well would reject Anna if she forgave him? Would he state that it is "too late"? I think so. I feel that in Bonaparta's eyes, the only way for Anna to be happy is if she completes her revenge. I haven't decided what to make about Anna's memory loss. You and, I think, Toph have suggested that he tampered with her memory before releasing her, but I've always had the impression that it's a combination of aging and repression. :) Maybe she opens that door a little now and then, but seeing the darkness of her hatred within, she closes it right back up again. Which is pretty much what you said. :) It could be age and repression. However, I always thought that something other than her own will guided her in the choice of leaving her children behind... |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 206 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62939706 12-18-2011 06:33 AM GinaSzamboti wrote: JohanT wrote: Very interesting! Are you perhaps insinuating that, in Fuer's eyes, the only love that is worthy of being called "true love" is that of a mother for her child? I find it very interesting that this type of love released the monster from its sleeping state. I saw it as poisonous, as rabid. As, in a sense, worthy of being truly unworthy. And going back to my original statements, Johan rejects his name, he rejects identity. And as such, he remains nameless, just as he was before. Again, there is not much of difference between the endings of The Nameless Monster and The Awakened Monster, at least in my eyes. So, an important question to pose is: Is Johan rejecting the name of the one most loved in fear that it will not be his own, or that it will be his own, but not that of his sister? Who truly is the one most loved? And, in reality, will knowing be of any benefit? I think those questions are rather important to consider :D. No, that wasn't what I was getting at at all. :) I meant that none of the other kinds of love could awaken the monster, only the rather cold, manipulative love of the people who worshiped Johann and called out to him to be their new Führer. Remember that the reason the boy wanted to wake the sleeping monster was that he was unhappy and the rumors promised that whoever awoke it could rule the world. Oh :D. Well, at any rate, your previous statement sparked something inside my brain! I rather like my analysis, but in truth, it would only truly fit if Johan were the author of The Awakened Monster :). So that is where we differ primarily. However, I think there may be a slight difference in the word choice of the story. I obtained The Awakened Monster from a friend of mine, who sent it to me via the internet. The word choice used was "possess", not "rule". I do not know, because I believe that the slightest dissimilarity would bring a whole new meaning to this! The phrase "possess everything in the world" suggests a broad range of ideas, which could possibly incorporate the aspect of total control. However, it may be left vague simply because having everything in the world is subjective in itself ::frustrated::. It could propose the wish to be loved or the wish to rule, or even the wish to see everyone else love and be loved (which is essentially why the boy starts to forget his original quest, as you state in your next paragraph.). While I understand the connection you have made, I hesitate to accept it because of the reasons stated. However, the translation my friend sent me could very well be incorrect! :D In that case, I will retract my declination! I think that I will answer the rest of your message in a later post. |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 207 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62945974 12-18-2011 03:43 PM Well. That's certainly food for thought about why Anna left the kids behind. It's something I've never come up with a satisfactory explanation for. :) JohanT wrote: However, I think there may be a slight difference in the word choice of the story. I obtained The Awakened Monster from a friend of mine, who sent it to me via the internet. The word choice used was "possess", not "rule". That's most likely beeluke's TL. While she's very good (and helped me immensely!), neither she nor the Spanish translator are native speakers, so I guess it's sort of a toss-up as to which has captured the nuances best (also I think finding those nuances is probably difficult when you only have hiragana to work with, as that lacks the layers of meaning choosing the perfect kanji can impart). The Spanish translator went with dominaría el mundo, which is to dominate the world. I am probably not parsing it right, but it looks to me like the ものに is the word in question, and the only thing I can find that comes close to the meaning is to master, or take possession of, or capture, as someone's heart. If that's right, then it seems like the point was similar to Chapek's telling the boy that what he really wanted was to own/possess people's hearts, and money couldn't buy that. For what it's worth (maybe not anything), when Sievernich is revealing his and Johann's original plan to change the world and make it theirs, ものにする was used. (it's only the lack of する that's making me question the meaning in the first usage. :) ) Mostly though, I'm inclined to accept the Spanish TL's more overt take on it, since world domination is much more in line with Fuer's views than something as heartwarming as love, or even as mundane as greed. ;) |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 208 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62949738 12-19-2011 03:33 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: Well. That's certainly food for thought about why Anna left the kids behind. It's something I've never come up with a satisfactory explanation for. :) Yes, it is something that has been stewing in my mind for quite some time. I do not believe that her decision was completely conscious, merely because I see a connection between her disappearance and Bonaparta's departing words to the then 5-year old Nina (or 6-year old, I do not remember). He tells the twins to run away, and specifically tells Nina to forget about everything she has seen. While this may be interpreted as simply ordering her to forget about the Red Rose Mansion, I think it extends further than that. Quite literally, I think he is telling her to forget everything, her past, her mother, him, and to escape. That is the only way, in my eyes, that she could avoid becoming a monster. The mother was also (again, in my eyes) deprived of her memory, of him, of the experiment, and, most shockingly, but not a true surprise, her children. With the little information we have of Bonaparta, and my personal view of his character, I think he would see the vengeful nature that the mother has now adopted as a potent environment for the two children he wishes to release from his bonds. After all, revenge is surely to craft a monster, as he is a prime example of that. |
||
JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 209 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62962792 12-20-2011 12:34 PM Hey everyone, newbie here with some ideas! Thanks, Gina, for sending me the translation. All the information I've just consumed is still settling down, but you guys have come up with a lot of great ideas so far. Sorry if I'm redundant, but where to start... Going to get a little biblical here--there's definitely Prodigal Son undertones in the Awakening Monster, as well as the Viera/Anna lost twin angst, extended to Johann and Nina. The one most loved is the one that has been lost, which causes jealousy and anger for the one less loved, even though he has done nothing wrong. How do you compete with the love a parent has for a missing child? I have a feeling Anna really took out her anguish on Johan after she gave up Nina "Why are you crying? why are you crying!?" It didn't matter if she knew which one she gave up--Anna and Johann both feel the guilt of being the one who just happened to survive. In all cases, the fundamental inequality between individuals is revealed, and I think that is what creates the monster. (Cain and Abel also has remarkable similarities to the story in general). Of course, the only way to do away with inequality is by doing away with individuality by giving everyone the same name--no name. My crazy theory on that. Also, I think the situation between Johann and Fuer/W parallels the Nameless Monster. Fuer is the monster who went west, who was happy without recognition, to hide in the darkness, to live in a peaceful home and to escape from the monsters of his past. Johann of course went east in search of power (up until a certain point, both characters are constantly struggling between the two philosophies) It's strange how both of their goals sort of switch at the RRM, when Fuer sees Johann. Johann has woken up from the dream and has accepted annihiliation, and Fuer has been inspired to seek power/influence like Johann had done before. I agree with JohanT (I think it was?) about Fuer and Johann becoming sort of merged at the end, just as in the fairytale, but I believe that it is Johann who "eats" Fuer which is why it is Johann on the phone at the end. Fuer realized that to gain true freedom, he had to complete the job of elliminating all the monsters of his past, but he's not as skilled as Johann, who probably played the role of the magician to Fuer, somehow. Actually I wonder, when Fuer was shot by Molke, was it Johann who stepped in to cover up the mess? It might explain the [.........] at Weber's question over the phone. In the end, Johann impersonates Fuer's fear at realizing that it isn't over yet, that Johann in on the loose. Well, that's what's been swimming in my head, hope you can make sense of it. One last thing: something occurred to me the other morning while I was half asleep. I remembered this children's sing along video song that literally hadn't popped into my head since I was a little kid. This one to be exact. I don't know if it's just a cute coincidence or there's deeper meaning relating to the Awakening Monster. From Wikipedia:
|
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 210 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62974537 12-20-2011 01:53 PM Heh, with all the holiday ranks, when I saw your name I thought that somehow they'd changed JohannT's name to JJJS (for some reason that's a song I associate with Christmas). :D Thanks for joining us!! JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: In all cases, the fundamental inequality between individuals is revealed, and I think that is what creates the monster. O.O at that whole paragraph, but this is what really leapt out at me. When I read the statement in Chapter 25, "Hatred lies dormant within words like equality. Because people can't live believing they are identical to everyone else," I remember just thinking about whether or not it was true. But themes just keep ricochetting around this story and echoing where you least expect them, and you just pointed out that this is one of those places. :) JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Actually I wonder, when Fuer was shot by Molke, was it Johann who stepped in to cover up the mess? It might explain the [.........] at Weber's question over the phone. In the end, Johann impersonates Fuer's fear at realizing that it isn't over yet, that Johann in on the loose. Not sure what you mean by the last line, but I had always assumed it was Kottmann who was helping him. If cleaning up the signs of struggle and patching the wall, etc. were things beyond Kottmann's abilities even with instruction, then I would assume Fuer did it himself, while dealing with his injured arm (which might explain why it took him more than 24 hrs to go to the hospital - he kept hoping it would stop bleeding, until he had no choice). As for that wordless pause, I took it to mean that Fuer was surprised that Weber had put all that together. Before that point he seemed to be happily chatting about his past to get Weber to see him as a victim and quit digging. When Kottmann's name comes up, he repeats it as if stalling for time to get his thoughts together about what he will say. The guy stayed with him for a year - I don't think he would have forgotten his name, even if he had taken it from him during that time. But then Weber lays it all out and he knows the charade is over. I almost wonder if Weber could have escaped unscathed if he hadn't asked about Kottmann, which of course he had to. Personally, I'm not yet convinced (but could be with sufficient grounds) that Johann was awake in Nov. 2000 when all that went down. If he woke up, I don't think it was before the summer of 2001, since I'm leaning toward the idea that the end of the series is roughly concurrent with the novel, and everything seems so summery in the anime. :) Hans Otto Thomas Johann Springer That's my name too! ^.^ Seriously, is there a complete list of all Johann's aliases? |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 211 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62939706 12-20-2011 03:09 PM Gina said: Within my pet theory, I also see the boy's forgetting his quest and becoming happy, and then finding the mother in a remote village as suggesting that the "other Johann" found Anna, and learned of her love for her son, and then went to awaken our Johann. But Fuer realizes that eventually the awakened Johann will destroy the wannabe ruler. Interesting. I never really played with the idea of there being another Johan (as you suggest that there is an unknown cousin who may have a similar physical appearance), but I see how you came to the conclusion. Truly, your interpretation makes sense. I think that the main difference is your placement of Johan. You see him as the sleeping monster, but I see him as the boy. However, in actuality, I see him as both. The monster is the boy and the boy is the monster. The boy sees happiness surrounding him, love of all kinds existent throughout his village, but his wish to be the most loved himself awakens the monster (which, in my interpretation, resides within his own mind). I suppose it is greed that truly brings about his own destruction, but in my opinion, it is not the sort of greed that pushes people to pursue world domination :D. It is a harmless greed, an innocent version. And yet, this greed is simply as destructive as its counterparts. Again, I see the main message as depicting the insignificance of having a name. A name to be loved or a name to be despised. In reality, according to this storybook, both make no difference. OR...if no such other exists, then perhaps it's autobiographical, and Fuer is the boy who sought world domination, but tired of the quest and contented himself with all those around him who were loved, until he encountered Johann, and was reminded who was most loved and why. Having the same name is perhaps a metaphor for being alike and having similar roots, and to Fuer's mind, similar goals. In this scenario he either awakened him, despite knowing he would be devoured by him (like Bonaparta told Anna she had devoured him), and it is Johann in the sketch (but that brings me back to why a sketch and not a note saying, "Gah! It's Johann!!"?). Or the monster sleeping is a metaphor for the monster sleeping within Fuer, sharing the same name signifies they are one and the same, and once awakened, he was devoured by it, and is now on a monstrous path because of that. As I already gave my interpretation above, I would like to address your "Gah! It's Johann!!" comment :D. I do not think that his face is well-known. Though the media is aware of his existence, the case is still as much of a mystery as it was from the beginning. I don't believe that photographs have been released, both for safety purposes, and because there is no proper evidence to convict Johan. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 212 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62974537 12-20-2011 03:47 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Hey everyone, newbie here with some ideas! Thanks, Gina, for sending me the translation. All the information I've just consumed is still settling down, but you guys have come up with a lot of great ideas so far. Sorry if I'm redundant, but where to start... Hello :D. Going to get a little biblical here--there's definitely Prodigal Son undertones in the Awakening Monster, as well as the Viera/Anna lost twin angst, extended to Johann and Nina. The one most loved is the one that has been lost, which causes jealousy and anger for the one less loved, even though he has done nothing wrong. How do you compete with the love a parent has for a missing child? I have a feeling Anna really took out her anguish on Johan after she gave up Nina "Why are you crying? why are you crying!?" It didn't matter if she knew which one she gave up--Anna and Johann both feel the guilt of being the one who just happened to survive. In all cases, the fundamental inequality between individuals is revealed, and I think that is what creates the monster. (Cain and Abel also has remarkable similarities to the story in general). Of course, the only way to do away with inequality is by doing away with individuality by giving everyone the same name--no name. My crazy theory on that. I agree! I was always curious about Anna's line of "don't cry". Do you think, perhaps, her own mother had yelled at her in the same way? Telling her not to cry because she was the unwanted one? Also, who did Anna tell that to? Johan or Nina? Also, I think the situation between Johann and Fuer/W parallels the Nameless Monster. Fuer is the monster who went west, who was happy without recognition, to hide in the darkness, to live in a peaceful home and to escape from the monsters of his past. Johann of course went east in search of power (up until a certain point, both characters are constantly struggling between the two philosophies) It's strange how both of their goals sort of switch at the RRM, when Fuer sees Johann. Johann has woken up from the dream and has accepted annihiliation, and Fuer has been inspired to seek power/influence like Johann had done before. It's interesting that you saw Johan as a man who sought power and influence. I saw the opposite, although it was evident that he enjoyed playing with others who sought such common human desires. What is most unique about Johan, besides his obvious talent in brainwashing and manipulation, is his ability to abstain from desire. I believe Lunge is the one who gives Johan the rather strange compliment of being a "Buddha drawn to destruction". I agree with JohanT (I think it was?) about Fuer and Johann becoming sort of merged at the end, just as in the fairytale, but I believe that it is Johann who "eats" Fuer which is why it is Johann on the phone at the end. Fuer realized that to gain true freedom, he had to complete the job of elliminating all the monsters of his past, but he's not as skilled as Johann, who probably played the role of the magician to Fuer, somehow. Actually I wonder, when Fuer was shot by Molke, was it Johann who stepped in to cover up the mess? It might explain the [.........] at Weber's question over the phone. In the end, Johann impersonates Fuer's fear at realizing that it isn't over yet, that Johann in on the loose. Well, that's what's been swimming in my head, hope you can make sense of it. One last thing: something occurred to me the other morning while I was half asleep. I remembered this children's sing along video song that literally hadn't popped into my head since I was a little kid. This one to be exact. I don't know if it's just a cute coincidence or there's deeper meaning relating to the Awakening Monster. From Wikipedia:
This is rather random of me, but in the manga, "Johann" is spelled "Johan". Being both German and Czech myself, I understand the reason for the spelling, but I was curious. Do the subtitles for the anime spell it as "Johann"? I have only ever watched the English dub. And this is a very interesting connection you have come up with.... "His name is my name" suggests the commonalities between people, and in short, suggests that though they despise the thought, they all have similar identities. This relates directly to Gina's statement from the text, about people prefering to be unique in nature. This actually sparked a thought... Bonaparta used common, simple names in his stories. Some were repeated in more than one of his works. What was the significance of this? Sorry for the tangent, but I have noticed that there is irony in Johan's name, as it means "God is gracious". But perhaps God is gracious, as Johan was born and designated as "the perfect human being". However, when connecting this to "The God of Peace", there is a Devil within the God. So while God is gracious, so is the Devil. And through combined efforts, they created the perfection that exists in Johan. And because they are oppossing figures, it is clear that this so-called perfection is highly flawed. Haha, I hope you see where I'm going with this, because I am not sure I know how to explain it any further.... :D |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 213 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62975589 12-20-2011 04:41 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: O.O at that whole paragraph, but this is what really leapt out at me. When I read the statement in Chapter 25, "Hatred lies dormant within words like equality. Because people can't live believing they are identical to everyone else," I remember just thinking about whether or not it was true. But themes just keep ricochetting around this story and echoing where you least expect them, and you just pointed out that this is one of those places. :) Aha, I'll take this opportunity to go off on my biased philosophicallish babble on that matter which may appear to go off topic, but bear with me. That was one of my favorite passages out of the whole book, because it totally clicked with what I had been studying before I watched Monster, which made me really appreciate the work in the first place (I hadn't watched anime in years, it was completely on a whim). This is my take on the passage: It basically stems back to the same tormoil behind marxism/communism/socialism or any structure that seeks to eliminate class and heirarchy--the unfortunate fact of reality that there will always be winners and losers. (Note that I'm not referring to any inherent value of human life, but rather the quality). Johann acknowledges this fact but never comes to terms with it, and it drives him to take revenge against God, fate, and society. (Runge's chapter talked about this as well). It's not that people don't want to live in total equality, not having to deal with who is better or worse--it's that it simply isn't possible. It's a truth that people can't live comfortably with, but ultimately can't live without. We're heirarchical creatures, and so in order to truly end the injustice of one being chosen over another, you have to eliminate individuality. That's what I think Bonaparta was trying to do, create people who would not be susceptible to self conciousness, jealousy, and the need for acceptance, by taking away their name and sense of self. But that's not possible, so the only option left if you cannot stand inequality would be to end humanity in all it's suffering catastrophe. Going back to Cain and Abel. Once Cain realizes the injustice of existance, one being more loved than another, he takes revenge and kills Abel. But God protects him by placing a mark on him "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." Why protect the murderer? Because the cycle of revenge would continue until you end up with Johann's vision of the end. GinaSzamboti wrote: Not sure what you mean by the last line, but I had always assumed it was Kottmann who was helping him. If cleaning up the signs of struggle and patching the wall, etc. were things beyond Kottmann's abilities even with instruction, then I would assume Fuer did it himself, while dealing with his injured arm (which might explain why it took him more than 24 hrs to go to the hospital - he kept hoping it would stop bleeding, until he had no choice). As for that wordless pause, I took it to mean that Fuer was surprised that Weber had put all that together. Before that point he seemed to be happily chatting about his past to get Weber to see him as a victim and quit digging. When Kottmann's name comes up, he repeats it as if stalling for time to get his thoughts together about what he will say. The guy stayed with him for a year - I don't think he would have forgotten his name, even if he had taken it from him during that time. But then Weber lays it all out and he knows the charade is over. I almost wonder if Weber could have escaped unscathed if he hadn't asked about Kottmann, which of course he had to. Personally, I'm not yet convinced (but could be with sufficient grounds) that Johann was awake in Nov. 2000 when all that went down. If he woke up, I don't think it was before the summer of 2001, since I'm leaning toward the idea that the end of the series is roughly concurrent with the novel, and everything seems so summery in the anime. :) Whether or not Johann has awoken really changes everything about how everything is interpretted XD. I didn't mean to suggest that Johann literally cleaned up after the shooting. More like he was the one who gave the order to Kottman to kill those three witnesses in order to protect Fuer. Did Kottman ever come into direct contact with his magician, anyway? Did he ever see his face? The pause just suggests to me that Fuer was not the one who was responsible for directing the Axe murders. It was someone watching over him, the one who he is afraid of. Perhaps Johann, perhaps not. List of Johann's aliases...that's like every name in existance. |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 214 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62977499 12-20-2011 05:26 PM This is rather random of me, but in the manga, "Johann" is spelled "Johan". Being both German and Czech myself, I understand the reason for the spelling, but I was curious. Do the subtitles for the anime spell it as "Johann"? I have only ever watched the English dub. Is that soo? Because I'm already so confused about that. I heard it's supposed to be Johann, but I honestly have no idea. Could you explain? I'll switch back to Johan for the time being. It's not 'Johann' in the anime. I agree! I was always curious about Anna's line of "don't cry". Do you think, perhaps, her own mother had yelled at her in the same way? Telling her not to cry because she was the unwanted one? Also, who did Anna tell that to? Johan or Nina? That's something that puzzles me, how did Nina act that out if she wasn't there? She returned to the three frogs, asked "Where's mother?" Johan may have told Nina what happened, and it became part of Nina's experience. It's interesting that you saw Johan as a man who sought power and influence. I saw the opposite, although it was evident that he enjoyed playing with others who sought such common human desires. What is most unique about Johan, besides his obvious talent in brainwashing and manipulation, is his ability to abstain from desire. I believe Lunge is the one who gives Johan the rather strange compliment of being a "Buddha drawn to destruction". I agree, though he did things like the underground bank, and going after Schuwald. It's like he tried going for power and fame because he realized that he had the means, and was somewhat of a chosen one, but right before he reached his goal with Schuwald he had that epiphane with the picture book and gave it all up. But his ultimate goal after gaining power would have been destruction And this is a very interesting connection you have come up with.... "His name is my name" suggests the commonalities between people, and in short, suggests that though they despise the thought, they all have similar identities. This relates directly to Gina's statement from the text, about people prefering to be unique in nature. This actually sparked a thought... Bonaparta used common, simple names in his stories. Some were repeated in more than one of his works. What was the significance of this? I think it's like a John Doe or John Smith thing. A name that is so braod and generic it is meaningless. Sorry for the tangent, but I have noticed that there is irony in Johan's name, as it means "God is gracious". But perhaps God is gracious, as Johan was born and designated as "the perfect human being". However, when connecting this to "The God of Peace", there is a Devil within the God. So while God is gracious, so is the Devil. And through combined efforts, they created the perfection that exists in Johan. And because they are oppossing figures, it is clear that this so-called perfection is highly flawed. Haha, I hope you see where I'm going with this, because I am not sure I know how to explain it any further.... It's more like the perfection that exists in every person, and Johan and Nina are the characters who act out that struggle. I see a lot of parallels between the God of Peace and Adam and Eve, but I'll have to think about that a little more, lemme go grab my bible again. |
||
saiyan-prince_shinji Posts: 25,700 Registered: 01-23-2005 Message 215 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-20-2011 06:59 PM gah fuuuuuudge!!! Im going to have to hunt ths downnnn |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 216 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62979057 12-20-2011 07:21 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Is that soo? Because I'm already so confused about that. I heard it's supposed to be Johann, but I honestly have no idea. Could you explain? I'll switch back to Johan for the time being. It's not 'Johann' in the anime. I suppose "Johann" would be the correct spelling, as that is the German version of the name "Johan", which has Hebrew roots, I believe. In the Czech Republic, and in Sweden, "Johann" is usually spelt "Johan", so perhaps it indicates the character's original heritage? I am not sure. However, if you were to ever search Johan via the internet (let's say, Google), the search bar immediately assumes you mean "Johan Liebert", not "Johann Liebert". Also, the wikipedia article for Monster has his name as "Johan", though wikipedia is not always reliable. That's something that puzzles me, how did Nina act that out if she wasn't there? She returned to the three frogs, asked "Where's mother?" Johan may have told Nina what happened, and it became part of Nina's experience. Gina brought this point up earlier in our conversation. I believe there was a time during Johan's days in Kinderheim 511 when Nina was able to experience his daily activities, and recite them accurately. So, judging by this piece of evidence, it is not a stretch to assume that Nina would be able to "experience", though she was not physically present, the conversation between her mother and brother. However, it could very well be that the mother had told this to Nina instead of Johan, as a witness testified seeing a woman and her child leaving their small apartement in a black car. The conversation took place, and through their powerful, almost supernatural twin telepathy, Johan began to cry, all alone in the house, as though he was the one speaking with their mother. It could also be that Nina brought the news to Johan after she escaped, and as Johan took the memories of the Red Rose Mansion massacre, he may have absorbed these memories as well... I agree, though he did things like the underground bank, and going after Schuwald. It's like he tried going for power and fame because he realized that he had the means, and was somewhat of a chosen one, but right before he reached his goal with Schuwald he had that epiphane with the picture book and gave it all up. But his ultimate goal after gaining power would have been destruction I do agree with the destruction aspect. However, there has always been something about Johan that intrigues me and continues to confuse me. And this something is the fact that Johan's destruction is almost always indirect. He is a catalyst, yes, but very rarely is he ever the true instigator of events. And who is the true instigator? The people who are his supposed "victims". This is what I took away from his character. Johan does not care for power, money, greed, etc. He does not even seem to take pride in the chaos he causes, as he prefers to do it in a way that the victims become their own victims. He just wants to watch humanity destroy itself. And while the underground bank and his toying with Schuwald could be interpreted as means to gain power, I saw it as a game. A game to see the various aspects of human gravitation, and how with just the tweak of his hands, he could watch the downfall of men stemming from their own lusts and greed. I think it's like a John Doe or John Smith thing. A name that is so braod and generic it is meaningless. Yes, the simpleness of the name could suggest the ultimate insignificance, something that came to my mind as well. However, the fact that the name is generic may actually be putting more value on the concept of the "name" than the stories may suggest. Bonaparta's theme of the name being disposable suggests a lack of importance, however, on the other hand, its constant reappearance also stresses its immense impact on a human being. Perhaps it is not the name itself that matters, but the fact that it is a name in the first place that counts. The commonness takes away from any remarkability, but it also silently and symbolically enhances that the mere sound of the name is not the true purpose of its incorporation. The concept of the name is far more important. It's more like the perfection that exists in every person, and Johan and Nina are the characters who act out that struggle. I see a lot of parallels between the God of Peace and Adam and Eve, but I'll have to think about that a little more, lemme go grab my bible again. Interesting. It could very well be that perfection exists in every human, but I see it more as a strange way of saying that perfection does not exist. Period. Truly, everything in a human's eyes that is deemed "perfect" is flawed. A "perfect" trait will be one that we seek to have or cultivate. And a "flaw" will be something that we see as bothersome, something that hinders us from our goals. Humans are flawed because what we seek is flawed. In reality, (in my warped little mind, at the very least), perfection is something that will neither hinder nor benefit humanity. And because of this, it will never be seen as "perfect". Haha, well, I suppose we could tie this in to Johan's predicament, in some obscure way. Perhaps we can say that he is "too perfect" to be of "true perfection"? Or, his so-called "perfect human being" status is contradictory, as humans labeled him as such. |
||
TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 217 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-21-2011 04:48 AM So...many...posts! O_O I've actually been putting this off, as I'm not sure how to pitch in. (And I think some of this came in during finals week. That wasn't a fun week...) But I guess I'll just address something JohnJacobSchmidt brought up: "Of course, the only way to do away with inequality is by doing away with individuality by giving everyone the same name--no name. My crazy theory on that." I've actually had some similar thoughts (most of which were triggered by Chapter 25 and The Sleeping Monster story), but I haven't posted them because I was afraid this would either turn into a wall of text or I would have trouble trying to sort them. I'll give it a shot now. The idea is that having names make people unequal. Having a name assigns a value to you, and since names differentiate people, those values are going to be different. Some people are dissatisfied with the values given to them, and thus want to improve. Yet by improving your own value, you also belittle the value of others. This was what Ruhenheim and Zweifelstadt were all about. What's the ultimate way to belittle someone's worth? Killing. Denying their right to live. It's this struggle to find a true identity, one that we're comfortable with, that leads to humanity's ultimate destruction. Yet it leads to a great irony, as people are defined by others. In order to gain a true name, you must kill everyone that may deny you that name. Yet if that happens to be everyone, then there will be no one left to affirm that name. (The monster finally had a name, but there was no one left to call him by it...) ...Hey, that was simpler than I thought it would be! It took me a while to remember what I wanted to say, though. :-D |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 218 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62981077 12-21-2011 10:18 AM I suppose "Johann" would be the correct spelling, as that is the German version of the name "Johan", which has Hebrew roots, I believe. In the Czech Republic, and in Sweden, "Johann" is usually spelt "Johan", so perhaps it indicates the character's original heritage? I am not sure. However, if you were to ever search Johan via the internet (let's say, Google), the search bar immediately assumes you mean "Johan Liebert", not "Johann Liebert". Also, the wikipedia article for Monster has his name as "Johan", though wikipedia is not always reliable. That probably settles it, Wolfe named the boy after the Czech picture book boy, so it's Johan. Thanks! Gina brought this point up earlier in our conversation. I believe there was a time during Johan's days in Kinderheim 511 when Nina was able to experience his daily activities, and recite them accurately. So, judging by this piece of evidence, it is not a stretch to assume that Nina would be able to "experience", though she was not physically present, the conversation between her mother and brother. I wonder what exactly went down after Nina was taken. That flashback Nina has while looking at the unfinished portraits seems to be the biggest clue. I do agree with the destruction aspect. However, there has always been something about Johan that intrigues me and continues to confuse me. And this something is the fact that Johan's destruction is almost always indirect. He is a catalyst, yes, but very rarely is he ever the true instigator of events. And who is the true instigator? The people who are his supposed "victims". This is what I took away from his character. Johan does not care for power, money, greed, etc. He does not even seem to take pride in the chaos he causes, as he prefers to do it in a way that the victims become their own victims. He just wants to watch humanity destroy itself. And while the underground bank and his toying with Schuwald could be interpreted as means to gain power, I saw it as a game. A game to see the various aspects of human gravitation, and how with just the tweak of his hands, he could watch the downfall of men stemming from their own lusts and greed. Yes yes I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. Let me back up, what I said before quite right. The east/west monster represents the individual who cannot make peace with society (hence being a monser). Both fundamentally hate the human condition, and the "game" of living. One decides not to play the game by remaining nameless. The other decides to play the game, win the game, and ultimately destroy it in the process. Johan doesn't really care for money and power in itself, but it's part of the game he's trying to exploit. Though it did seem like there was a point where he honestly enjoyed the power he was able to accumulate, like how the monster enjoyed living in the castle for awhile. Your analysis of Johan's character is what makes him such a great model for a Satan-esque villain. The biblical devil doesn't do anything atrocious himself, he only gets human beings to inact their own wicked natures. Now that I think about it, Lucifer is like the less loved one, who was the brightest star, yet God loves humanity more despite how horrible people are (prodigal son). The devil is the one most disgusted by humanity, and even more disgusted by the idea of God forgiving humanity. 'If you are wicked, you should die, that is justice.' It demonstrates that the greatest evil is the prideful, self-righteous verdict that the petty sinners of humanity do not deserve to live. Then you end up with death camps and holocausts. Yes, the simpleness of the name could suggest the ultimate insignificance, something that came to my mind as well. However, the fact that the name is generic may actually be putting more value on the concept of the "name" than the stories may suggest. Bonaparta's theme of the name being disposable suggests a lack of importance, however, on the other hand, its constant reappearance also stresses its immense impact on a human being. Perhaps it is not the name itself that matters, but the fact that it is a name in the first place that counts. The commonness takes away from any remarkability, but it also silently and symbolically enhances that the mere sound of the name is not the true purpose of its incorporation. The concept of the name is far more important. Having a little big of diffculty rapping my mind around this, but it may address the recurring paradox between individuality and community. It probably ties nicely in with what TophBeiFong has mentioned above. We want to be unique and special, but there's a trade off if you want to live in society. To place yourself apart from others is to isolate yourself, rendering your name meaningless. Yet, by living peacefully with others, you may not stand out as much, yet you will be connected with other people who know your name. The isolated desenter takes complete ownership of his unique name, but the societal person places his (generic) name in the hands of other people, so to speak. Think of how the Black smith rises to the top of society as an ubermensch before he is consumed and becomes nameless. Seeking a Name---->becoming an ubermensch---->recognition above others---->isolation----->namelessness. :( This all sounds confusing, but I think we are on the same page. Interesting. It could very well be that perfection exists in every human, but I see it more as a strange way of saying that perfection does not exist. Period. Truly, everything in a human's eyes that is deemed "perfect" is flawed. A "perfect" trait will be one that we seek to have or cultivate. And a "flaw" will be something that we see as bothersome, something that hinders us from our goals. Humans are flawed because what we seek is flawed. In reality, (in my warped little mind, at the very least), perfection is something that will neither hinder nor benefit humanity. And because of this, it will never be seen as "perfect". Haha, well, I suppose we could tie this in to Johan's predicament, in some obscure way. Perhaps we can say that he is "too perfect" to be of "true perfection"? Or, his so-called "perfect human being" status is contradictory, as humans labeled him as such. The concept of perfect in my mind is basically yin-yang. Good and Evil, Evil has a speck good, and Good has a speck of evil. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 219 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62989737 12-21-2011 01:01 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: That probably settles it, Wolfe named the boy after the Czech picture book boy, so it's Johan. Thanks! Haha, no problem! However, I am only going off what I know, which may be limited... Perhaps you should ask Gina? The translator of the previous chapters in Another Monster spelled it as "Johan"... He may or may not be the same person who translated the manga. I wonder what exactly went down after Nina was taken. That flashback Nina has while looking at the unfinished portraits seems to be the biggest clue. Yes, I agree. I used to think that the conversation was with Johan himself, as Nina describes him "crying, just like he did back then". However, seeing as a person need not be physically present to experience something to the fullest extent, many theories could potentially arise from this. I think it would fit, personally, if Johan had cried while he was alone, as his mother shouted at Nina herself not to cry. It would enhance the feeling of abandonment in a way. The mother has abandoned Johan before telling him these cruel words. He is abandoned as he is experiencing them, in solitude. The desertion had occurred, and the words had followed, in the reverse of how it appeared to Nina. Yes yes I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. Let me back up, what I said before quite right. The east/west monster represents the individual who cannot make peace with society (hence being a monser). Both fundamentally hate the human condition, and the "game" of living. One decides not to play the game by remaining nameless. The other decides to play the game, win the game, and ultimately destroy it in the process. Johan doesn't really care for money and power in itself, but it's part of the game he's trying to exploit. Though it did seem like there was a point where he honestly enjoyed the power he was able to accumulate, like how the monster enjoyed living in the castle for awhile. Your analysis of Johan's character is what makes him such a great model for a Satan-esque villain. The biblical devil doesn't do anything atrocious himself, he only gets human beings to inact their own wicked natures. Now that I think about it, Lucifer is like the less loved one, who was the brightest star, yet God loves humanity more despite how horrible people are (prodigal son). The devil is the one most disgusted by humanity, and even more disgusted by the idea of God forgiving humanity. 'If you are wicked, you should die, that is justice.' It demonstrates that the greatest evil is the prideful, self-righteous verdict that the petty sinners of humanity do not deserve to live. Then you end up with death camps and holocausts. Yes, I think we are on the same page! I brought up this point earlier, but if I were to accept my theory of Johan reawakening and writing The Awakened Monster, then I see this as Johan's final acceptance of the monster who went west. He acknowledges that a name means little, as the search for one resulted in the monster consuming all until he was the last one standing. Something that I personally concluded was that Johan had been living in the "castle", as you say, up until the point where he stumbled upon The Nameless Monster once again. It was then that he realized that he was not Johan. And yet, this realization did not lead to any sort of admittance. In fact, it lead to a search for his true name (not a fake name), and it seemed for a moment as though Johan was straying away from the storybook's plot, which followed his usual lifestyle. But in the end, he reverts back to it, seeking the destruction of all including himself, perhaps indicating that a human being, in the end, will remain self-destructive, despite their choices, and that they will revert back to familiarity. Having a little big of diffculty rapping my mind around this, but it may address the recurring paradox between individuality and community. It probably ties nicely in with what TophBeiFong has mentioned above. Yes, that is part of what I was getting at. And I agree with TophBeiFong that the concept of equality will only occur when everyone has no name, or shares the same name. But sharing the same name is troublesome as well, for behind every name is a meaning. However, the meaning will diminish if everyone were to share that name, and thus its definition. My main point was that the mundane names given to the children are not at all beautiful in themselves. It is the mere fact that they are names that make them define the human being. We define ourselves through names, and by taking away a name, our ability to separate ourselves is lost. At the same time, having a common name will have the same effect, and not at all to a lesser extent. However, though this is true, there is a difference in how Bonaparta uses it. Through having no name, Bonaparta wishes to raise his masterpiece of a creation: a human being who can control others with words. In the present society, having no name will not liken you to everyone else. Quite the contrary, it will isolate you completely. And in order for a true monster to be born, any trace of connection with humanity must be nonexistent. As it is, humanity is made of names and associations. We want to be unique and special, but there's a trade off if you want to live in society. To place yourself apart from others is to isolate yourself, rendering your name meaningless. Yet, by living peacefully with others, you may not stand out as much, yet you will be connected with other people who know your name. The isolated desenter takes complete ownership of his unique name, but the societal person places his (generic) name in the hands of other people, so to speak. Think of how the Black smith rises to the top of society as an ubermensch before he is consumed and becomes nameless. Seeking a Name---->becoming an ubermensch---->recognition above others---->isolation----->namelessness. :( This all sounds confusing, but I think we are on the same page. Hmm, while I do agree that generally placing yourself apart from society is in fact a form of isolation, I have always thought that the uniqueness that you hold would only aid the meaningfulness of your existence. It is when you are utterly bereft of any kind of label that you become meaningless, in my opinion. In truth, I see humans as purely solitary in mind. I think we are on the same page, I just wanted to clarify my view on the matter. It is odd, but I would argue that isolation in form of the "ubermensch", as you say, actually strengthens societal ties. As we all seek the same form of this power, those who reach it are admired and envied by others. While power does most certainly isolate a human being, it does so in the mind rather than in desires and ideals. As people work towards the goal of triumphing over others, they are accompanied by their fellow human beings. This recognition implies that those who follow this path are not nameless, but their shared commonality could imply that all of them should bear the same name, though the delusions that they affect themselves with would suggest otherwise... But what are you viewed as when you have no name?... The concept of perfect in my mind is basically yin-yang. Good and Evil, Evil has a speck good, and Good has a speck of evil. And because they taint each other, they cannot hope to be deemed as "perfect". I personally don't believe in good and evil, seeing as my view on them would extend beyond human limitations. I believe such titles, which, in reality, are both pure in themselves (yes, I am calling Evil pure, for it is 'purely evil", heh heh :D), only serve to define the inhuman. Going back to this, though, I feel that the God and the Devil depicted in Bonaparta's story are both imperfect as well. Perhaps you are identifying that perfection is balance? I personally see perfection as something that can never be defined by the human mind. When a flawed mind comes up with a way to define flawlessness, it will only result in the definition of "flawlessness" being flawed. Haha, hope that made sense. I would like to address Toph's statement on killing being the worst form of belittlement. I personally believe that the forcible removal of someone's name is in fact the ultimate degradation, as you are denying that person's right to identity. I have a feeling that Bonaparta saw this matter in this specific way as well. And notice, of course, that both the depriving of life and the depriving of identity must be carried out by another human being, as I think Toph addressed. To be ripped apart by someone you wish to see as your subordinate... But I digress, back on topic! When a human dies, they do not lose their name. However, if a human lives, but has no name, then the purpose of their life vanishes. It smears the line between life and death, until there is no difference between the two. Being killed, in my eyes, is only diminishing to those who see death as the end. But those who exist namelessly are already at the end. Life and death would appear to be the same realm to them. But I do agree with what you have said, Toph! |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 220 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62989737 12-21-2011 05:55 PM Wow, it's like Christmas in here! Lots of new presents! ^.^ JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: I suppose "Johann" would be the correct spelling, as that is the German version of the name "Johan", which has Hebrew roots, I believe. In the Czech Republic, and in Sweden, "Johann" is usually spelt "Johan", so perhaps it indicates the character's original heritage? I am not sure. However, if you were to ever search Johan via the internet (let's say, Google), the search bar immediately assumes you mean "Johan Liebert", not "Johann Liebert". Also, the wikipedia article for Monster has his name as "Johan", though wikipedia is not always reliable. That probably settles it, Wolfe named the boy after the Czech picture book boy, so it's Johan. Thanks! Not so fast... :D Remember that all the names in Bonaparta's books were German names. Hans, Otto, Thomas, Johann. That's why it was meaningful to Lunge that Poppe was the only German surname among the pen-names. So I maintain that, like Bach, it should be spelled Johann. However, I may well be in the minority view on this. And I think some Germans spell it with a single n too, although that could be a reflection of family heritages, which might in turn have been influenced by other ethnic groups. Still, I've spelled it that way for so long, I'm sticking with it. ;) Because this came up, I was thinking that maybe Johann might be written in the original language in the storybooks, as can barely be seen beneath the Japanese translation for Weindler's manuscript. No such luck. Like a manga, it's all in Japanese. :) BUT! I ran across some things I didn't know, and learned some other things while trying to check it. Nameless Monster (I'm still partial to Monster Without a Name, but either will do) has copyright pages for each of the included stories. So, The God of Peace was published in 1968 by Klaus Poppe (same year as the "Prague Spring"), The Man With the Big Eyes etc. was in 1973 By Jakub Faroubek, and Nameless Monster was in 1977, by Emil Šébe. By the way, even though the cover of the book shows it written Sebe, if it was published in Czech Republic, that would not be pronounced "Shairbay" as both the English and Japanese dubs did. It needs those diacritical marks. :) That said, I also found that the correct way to write Fuer's name is Führ. That's in a German credit of the Sleeping Monster illustration at the end of the book. Apparently führ means to travel, or to guide or lead someone (hence, Führer), although as a name it seems to refer to someone who lives near a ferry or ford. Edit: Ok, I concede. I still think it should be spelled Johann, however...on the cover of the book, in English, it's spelled Johan. ::sigh:: This is going to take some getting used to... |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 221 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62994423 12-21-2011 06:50 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: I suppose "Johann" would be the correct spelling, as that is the German version of the name "Johan", which has Hebrew roots, I believe. In the Czech Republic, and in Sweden, "Johann" is usually spelt "Johan", so perhaps it indicates the character's original heritage? I am not sure. However, if you were to ever search Johan via the internet (let's say, Google), the search bar immediately assumes you mean "Johan Liebert", not "Johann Liebert". Also, the wikipedia article for Monster has his name as "Johan", though wikipedia is not always reliable. That probably settles it, Wolfe named the boy after the Czech picture book boy, so it's Johan. Thanks! Not so fast... :D Remember that all the names in Bonaparta's books were German names. Hans, Otto, Thomas, Johann. That's why it was meaningful to Lunge that Poppe was the only German surname among the pen-names. So I maintain that, like Bach, it should be spelled Johann. However, I may well be in the minority view on this. And I think some Germans spell it with a single n too, although that could be a reflection of family heritages, which might in turn have been influenced by other ethnic groups. Still, I've spelled it that way for so long, I'm sticking with it. ;) Because this came up, I was thinking that maybe Johann might be written in the original language in the storybooks, as can barely be seen beneath the Japanese translation for Weindler's manuscript. No such luck. Like a manga, it's all in Japanese. :) BUT! I ran across some things I didn't know, and learned some other things while trying to check it. Nameless Monster (I'm still partial to Monster Without a Name, but either will do) has copyright pages for each of the included stories. So, The God of Peace was published in 1968 by Klaus Poppe (same year as the "Prague Spring"), The Man With the Big Eyes etc. was in 1973 By Jakub Faroubek, and Nameless Monster was in 1977, by Emil Šébe. By the way, even though the cover of the book shows it written Sebe, if it was published in Czech Republic, that would not be pronounced "Shairbay" as both the English and Japanese dubs did. It needs those diacritical marks. :) Very true :D. I never watched the anime properly, but being Czech myself, I realize that pronunciation can be difficult at times. But you're correct, in "Šébe", there is no "ay" sound at the end, nor is there a very pronounced "shair' sound. IIt is very slight, though I am unsure how to write it in English.... |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 222 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62995377 12-21-2011 07:03 PM Okay, so now I'm reeaally confused! But having tested out both methods of writing the name, I'm going to choose Johan, just so I don't have to type the other n. I also think it looks better >__> But anyway, I just realized how my expectation that Johan was really behind everything since the beginning shaped how I read the thing. So I'm trying to reset my mind and look at it again. Gina's interpretation of [.......] definitely makes more sense if it is really is Fuhr, but that dang drawing... |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 223 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62995551 12-21-2011 07:17 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Okay, so now I'm reeaally confused! But having tested out both methods of writing the name, I'm going to choose Johan, just so I don't have to type the other n. I also think it looks better >__> But anyway, I just realized how my expectation that Johan was really behind everything since the beginning shaped how I read the thing. So I'm trying to reset my mind and look at it again. Gina's interpretation of [.......] definitely makes more sense if it is really is Fuhr, but that dang drawing... You know, the drawing need not be anything literal. It could be a symbolic reference, as Monster is filled with numerous accounts of supernatural occurences that are integrated into the plots and themes. And yet, do these supernatural events actually occur? I do not believe so. It is a psychological thriller, it is meant to delve into the darkest recesses of human nature. Nothing has to be reality in order for us to see it as such... |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 224 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 62995773 12-21-2011 07:33 PM JohanT wrote: JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Okay, so now I'm reeaally confused! But having tested out both methods of writing the name, I'm going to choose Johan, just so I don't have to type the other n. I also think it looks better >__> But anyway, I just realized how my expectation that Johan was really behind everything since the beginning shaped how I read the thing. So I'm trying to reset my mind and look at it again. Gina's interpretation of [.......] definitely makes more sense if it is really is Fuhr, but that dang drawing... You know, the drawing need not be anything literal. It could be a symbolic reference, as Monster is filled with numerous accounts of supernatural occurences that are integrated into the plots and themes. And yet, do these supernatural events actually occur? I do not believe so. It is a psychological thriller, it is meant to delve into the darkest recesses of human nature. Nothing has to be reality in order for us to see it as such... It could be, but the rest of the drawings in the book are done from life, so I feel that the last one would follow that pattern. Though I understand if it was done just to keep the mystery, and Johan, alive in our heads. That is certainly the most important thing. Fuhr may have been a monster, but that last drawing affirms how much more power Johan has as a character, for me. He's the one who's not supposed to be lurking in the shadows this time, yet, there he is. |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 225 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62996043 12-21-2011 08:02 PM I just feel like if that's Johan, the book's title is misleading. And Fuhr's just a wannabe, so I don't count him as the titular character. Oh, btw, it may well be that there were no photos of Johan released to the public. But if that's the case, what's the point of the translator saying, "I'll leave it to the reader to determine who this sketch looks like"? All his readers would be going, "Hmmm, Epsilon from Pluto? A young Katherine Hepburn? How the heck should I know??" :D In any case, I'm sure Weber didn't do all this research for a year without ever running across (or seeking out) a picture of Johan. |
||
SonjaJade Posts: 1,805 Registered: 09-11-2008 Message 226 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-21-2011 08:47 PM I haven't read any of this thread because I don't wanna know spoilers, but I did watch the original Monster series. Where can I find Another Monster? Is it like a book you read or is it a visual novel or a manga? Very interested in this. |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 227 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to SonjaJade - Message ID#: 62997333 12-21-2011 09:30 PM Good idea not to read. We got tired of the spoiler tags, since no one was replying anyway, and anyone still lurking was probably reading them anyway. :D If all else fails, Google will deliver. ;) I promise. |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 228 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62996509 12-21-2011 09:50 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: I just feel like if that's Johan, the book's title is misleading. And Fuhr's just a wannabe, so I don't count him as the titular character. Oh, btw, it may well be that there were no photos of Johan released to the public. But if that's the case, what's the point of the translator saying, "I'll leave it to the reader to determine who this sketch looks like"? All his readers would be going, "Hmmm, Epsilon from Pluto? A young Katherine Hepburn? How the heck should I know??" :D In any case, I'm sure Weber didn't do all this research for a year without ever running across (or seeking out) a picture of Johan. At that point, it seems to be Urasawa speaking to the reader. I still think the look and feel of that sketch was of something seen at the last minute. I don't recall if this was brought up earlier, so forgive me if it was. Considering Monster began with a passage from Revelation, what do you think of this one? It comes right after the first. Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. Revelation 13: 11,12 |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 229 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62998471 12-22-2011 12:04 AM Considering the lengths Urasawa went to to make the whole thing seem real (Weber's photo, fake resume, co-authorship, even on the copyright page, etc.), I just can't see him dropping the mask at any point to wink at his real life readers. :) I mean, Johan appeared on stage with Schuwald. Even if they wouldn't or couldn't name him other than "J" it's implausible that every mainstream news outlet and tabloid would have failed to run a picture of him during the media frenzy when the story first broke. As for those passages, I'm surprised they didn't begin or end the novel. :) And I can't remember reading anything where people have deconstructed the Revelation quote to apply it to the story, other than the fact that Johan is clearly the beast, with the fatal head injury that was healed. So is Bonaparta the dragon to Johan's beast, as he was the demon to his monster in Lipsky's play? What are the 7 heads - Johan's various identities (which if Führ is the 2nd beast, the two horns are his Führ and Weindler aliases?)? I can only think of 6, but that doesn't mean anything. And the 10 horns - are those his aliases, or the people who supported him, like Chapek et al? I'm too sleepy to work it out tonight, but I can't wait to hear what you guys come up with. ;) |
||
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 230 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-22-2011 05:22 AM I like the look of Johan better than Johann, so I'm using that spelling regardless of accuracy. ...And we have gone from Fuher to Fuer to Fuhr. XD Anyway, going back a couple of pages (lol)...Gina brought up a translation difference between beeluke and the Spanish translations. Ruling/dominating the world instead of posessing everything in the world changes the meaning of the story quite a bit. People seeking power over others jives well with my little analysis I posted before, I think. In order to set yourself apart from others you must be above them, which implies having power. Also, I decided to look through that story again, and I have to wonder if there is meaning in the fact that the mother was crying for her lost child. It's not entirely clear whether or not that was really the boy's mother, but if she was, the reason that she may not have noticed her son was that she was too upset. The boy, wanting to awaken the monster in the cave, essentially rejects the mother's love. This seems to go back with people being dissatisfied with themselves. The boy wants more than what he has, but the only reason is because he doesn't think that he is fine the way he is. On an essential level, what people want is acceptance. Yet they can be led astray, and their desire for acceptance gets twisted into a desire for power...which unleashes the monster. In light of this, what if it is the person's own name that opens up the cave? That means anyone can open it, but in order to do so you have to set yourself above others. As for the sketch, I don't think it's symbolic, JohanT. (Though I do think that the ending of the main series could be, as far as the empty bed goes. It's debatable, but I personally think that the whole part with Johan waking up literally was Tenma's imagination, at least. As in, it was a visual representation of what was going through Tenma's head. ...Yeah, I'd better stop with the tangent. ^_^U) It just seems too important. But if you want a symbolic interpretation, I would say that it would have something to do with the monster never being destroyed or that some mysteries can never be solved. ...It would actually be kinda funny if Urasawa just decided to put that sketch in there just to screw with everyone and it has no relation to anything else in the story. :-D As for the Revelation references, I don't think it means anything specific. I think it's just the general idea of an Antichrist, false names, and the Apocalypse. Though an interesting thought occurred to me: Gina thought of six names. I'm guessing those are Thomas, Otto, Hans, Johan, Erich, and Michael. What if the seventh name is his real name? If all the heads of the beast are false except for one, would harming the real head kill it? Does this mean that giving the monster its real name destroys it? |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 231 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63001363 12-22-2011 09:07 AM If it is the case that everyone knows what he already looks like, it would be pointless to scribble a picture of him, no? Unless he was there. Even if Weber was unsure if the man was actually Johan, the most objective clue he could leave behind was an image of the man he saw. As for dissecting Revelation, I agree with TophBeiFong in that wasn't meant to be that literal. There's enough dispute among theologians in the west about what all that means, how many dragons there are, what they stand for, etc. For a Japanese writer to a Japanese audience, I don't believe those details have the same impact or significance, but the general idea is what counts. I take it to mean that second beast is supposed to be Fuhr, and Johan has awoken. But putting that verse in the book would have been major spoilers. Toph, the literal translation of that is "All of the world placed in his hands." Also, he comes to feel like he's possessed the world after seeing all those happy people, which means he probably didn't want to actually dominate anyone. In similar words, the boy feels that he finally has a good handle on the world. It's interesting to note how the boy feels satisfied with the world until he comes across someone in despair, then he returns to his original mission. Could it be that the monster represents something used in response to the world's problems? Actually, ambition is a key point, and I think Runge would definitely agree with what you said about acceptance and power:
The last thing I'm wondering about the tale is: what does that symbol on the rock mean? It's a sleeping face. Something is coming out of its mouth, splitting the face in two. It travels upward, then to the right (east?) then to the left (west?). |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 232 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62996043 12-22-2011 12:24 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: It could be, but the rest of the drawings in the book are done from life, so I feel that the last one would follow that pattern. Though I understand if it was done just to keep the mystery, and Johan, alive in our heads. That is certainly the most important thing. Fuhr may have been a monster, but that last drawing affirms how much more power Johan has as a character, for me. He's the one who's not supposed to be lurking in the shadows this time, yet, there he is. Yes, and this is what I meant previously when I said that Johan was alive within Fuhr. Keep in mind that when I say "Johan", I do not necessarily mean the human being himself.... In fact, I would go as far as to call the name "Johan" a concept instead of a person, with regards to this story... |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 233 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 62996509 12-22-2011 12:32 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: I just feel like if that's Johan, the book's title is misleading. And Fuhr's just a wannabe, so I don't count him as the titular character. Oh, btw, it may well be that there were no photos of Johan released to the public. But if that's the case, what's the point of the translator saying, "I'll leave it to the reader to determine who this sketch looks like"? All his readers would be going, "Hmmm, Epsilon from Pluto? A young Katherine Hepburn? How the heck should I know??" :D In any case, I'm sure Weber didn't do all this research for a year without ever running across (or seeking out) a picture of Johan. Perhaps Weber did know of Johan's appearance. However, even in the photos with Schuwald, Johan's face was always somewhat shrouded and turned to the side. Even during the book festival itself, he stood in the shadows. Now, I personally think that addressing the audience of Monster rather than the fictional audience this novel is supposed to target would simply be a change in perspective. It has occurred in many pieces of fiction, so perhaps Urasawa decided to incorporate it as well. I know that I was extremely surprised (well, ecstatic, actually :D) when I saw that the sketch resembled Johan. Urasawa is addressing us on a personal level at this point. But there is more significance in a drawing than a sentence stating that it is Johan... The drawing is ambiguous. It leaves room for numerous interpretations and theories. If Urasawa was always direct and precise, we would never be able to have discussions like this one :D. I never liked stories that finished with a "closed" ending, if you know what I mean. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 234 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 62998471 12-22-2011 12:35 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: At that point, it seems to be Urasawa speaking to the reader. I still think the look and feel of that sketch was of something seen at the last minute. I don't recall if this was brought up earlier, so forgive me if it was. Considering Monster began with a passage from Revelation, what do you think of this one? It comes right after the first. Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. Revelation 13: 11,12 Oh, this is exactly what I was talking about when I spoke about the "Second coming of the Antichrist" a few posts back! I'm glad that's confirmed :D, I did not know if it existed, or if my mind was playing tricks on me. I personally think that the most significant line from the Book of Revelations that serves to identify the primary purpose of its incorporation was, "Who is like unto the beast? Who can make war with him?". Or something like that :D. And do you recall what Schuwald said? "The only thing that can defeat a monster is a greater monster". So who is greater monster? Was there ever a greater monster? It seems, to me, that the greater monster was merely the monster within. It is not necessarily that it is monstrous in property, but it is an enemy of the other monster, and therefore, it has the ability to destroy it. Perhaps the greater monster is only a monster in the eyes of the other monster... So, in truth, which of the two is the real monster? OR, it could go even beyond that, and stretch into larger, more complex philosophical territory. It could imply that evil is only truly eradicated when it comes face to face with a more potent evil. However, is a monster evil? The term implies inhumanity, and this would fit into my personal opinon of what evil truly is (for reference, look up my original posts :D), but is it truly malicious? Now, this could be suggesting that Fuhr (or Johan, depending on who you think is the first monster), is the greater of the two beasts. And I think this fits in excellently with what John Schmidt brought up about the second coming. I would prefer to think of it as a "resurrection". |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 235 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63001363 12-22-2011 01:41 PM TophBeiFong wrote: Anyway, going back a couple of pages (lol)...Gina brought up a translation difference between beeluke and the Spanish translations. Ruling/dominating the world instead of posessing everything in the world changes the meaning of the story quite a bit. People seeking power over others jives well with my little analysis I posted before, I think. In order to set yourself apart from others you must be above them, which implies having power. Also, I decided to look through that story again, and I have to wonder if there is meaning in the fact that the mother was crying for her lost child. It's not entirely clear whether or not that was really the boy's mother, but if she was, the reason that she may not have noticed her son was that she was too upset. The boy, wanting to awaken the monster in the cave, essentially rejects the mother's love. This seems to go back with people being dissatisfied with themselves. The boy wants more than what he has, but the only reason is because he doesn't think that he is fine the way he is. On an essential level, what people want is acceptance. Yet they can be led astray, and their desire for acceptance gets twisted into a desire for power...which unleashes the monster. In light of this, what if it is the person's own name that opens up the cave? That means anyone can open it, but in order to do so you have to set yourself above others. I agree. And this goes back to what I said on the previous page, that it was greed that truly awakened the monster, though I did say that it was a seemingly harmless one... Personally, I see the boy, who, after coming across a woman crying over her lost child, seeks to awaken the monster, embracing the mother's love, instead of rejecting it. However, love, as you say, is something that we feel we must hold on our sleeves, something that we wish to flaunt. And this love, since it is a strange form of selfishness, awakend the monster. Does anyone else see parallels between this and Milosh, the boy who only wished to find his mother? Yet though this love is essentially pure, Johan tampers with it, something he restrained himself from doing with Karl, who also sought love and a family. However, there is a profound difference between the two. Milosh wishes to claim his mother, to shout to the world that he is loved by her. Karl, even though he knows who his father is, does not make any moves, for fear that he will upset his father and appear selfish. Now, Milosh is not at all in the wrong with his desires, as he is still a child, and possesses innocence. However, it seems as though the monster cares nothing for innocence and good wishes... Truly, the only unselfish desire is the desire to abstain from desire... As for the sketch, I don't think it's symbolic, JohanT. (Though I do think that the ending of the main series could be, as far as the empty bed goes. It's debatable, but I personally think that the whole part with Johan waking up literally was Tenma's imagination, at least. As in, it was a visual representation of what was going through Tenma's head. ...Yeah, I'd better stop with the tangent. ^_^U) It just seems too important. But if you want a symbolic interpretation, I would say that it would have something to do with the monster never being destroyed or that some mysteries can never be solved. ...It would actually be kinda funny if Urasawa just decided to put that sketch in there just to screw with everyone and it has no relation to anything else in the story. :-D I think that symbolism would only serve to enhance the importance. Either it is reality, or it is not, and the same goes for Tenma's encounter with Johan's supposedly "comatose" self :D. Though, I do agree with you that it was in Tenma's head, but I would not put it past Johan to slip in and out of his coma, perhaps in an attempt to reawaken as his true human self, but being unable to. As for the Revelation references, I don't think it means anything specific. I think it's just the general idea of an Antichrist, false names, and the Apocalypse. Though an interesting thought occurred to me: Gina thought of six names. I'm guessing those are Thomas, Otto, Hans, Johan, Erich, and Michael. What if the seventh name is his real name? If all the heads of the beast are false except for one, would harming the real head kill it? Does this mean that giving the monster its real name destroys it? Very interesting! This would contradict everything that I have suggested, as saying the true name seems to bring about destruction. However, it could very well be that the true name would in fact kill the monster.... However, by killing the monster, perhaps Johan would be killing himself. There is a human being beneath Johan's exterior, but since this human being has never had time to develop, is it even existing? Perhaps the monster is all Johan is, and all he will ever be... Therefore, is it fear that he will erase himself completely, once the monster is destroyed? Will seeking a name for this monster be giving the the monster a name, or giving the human a name? Will the name be his, if he is not the human being? |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 236 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63001363 12-22-2011 02:10 PM It looks like the Monster inside us is exploding! :D Not complaining, but I don't think I'll ever get to everything people have raised. Ah, what a nice problem to have! As I read, I think of 30 different things I want to say, and then get overwhelmed and can't say anything coherent. Toph, I very much like your interpretation that the monster could be awakened by anyone, by saying their own name. Which means they're the most loved, but don't know it and seek more, which consumes them when they pursue it. This is the sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma of all of Bonaparta's (and now Führ's stories). (side note: Führ, Bonaparta's best student, very much fits the description of the second beast as "and he spake as a dragon." Still doesn't make me think he's Another Monster, because I'm stubborn) Oh, yeah, the 7th name could be the true one. Hadn't thought of that! :) Speaking of names again, I just remembered that the writer who coined the word "robot" was a Czech named Karel Čapek. I'm sure Urasawa knows this, given his fascination with Astro Boy, so I'd like to think Chapek was named for him, since part of his mission from the government was to create human robots for the state. :) |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 237 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63002511 12-22-2011 02:27 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: If it is the case that everyone knows what he already looks like, it would be pointless to scribble a picture of him, no? Unless he was there. Even if Weber was unsure if the man was actually Johan, the most objective clue he could leave behind was an image of the man he saw. If he knew it was Johan, the most objective thing is to say so in writing. And faster and easier and unambiguous. Which is why it seems to me that he didn't know who it was, and could only draw his image. That's why I latched on to the cousin theory. It explains so many things, like the reason for including the detail about Anna thinking her twin was alive (which from a storytelling pov is a pointless red herring otherwise), why a sketch and not words, who the consortium that bought up The Sleeping Monster is pinning their hopes on... It just seems to me like Füer is the Bonaparta to the new Johan. Or, if he's just a figment of my imagination, then the real Johan. :) JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: As for dissecting Revelation, I agree with TophBeiFong in that wasn't meant to be that literal. There's enough dispute among theologians in the west about what all that means, how many dragons there are, what they stand for, etc. For a Japanese writer to a Japanese audience, I don't believe those details have the same impact or significance, but the general idea is what counts. I take it to mean that second beast is supposed to be Fuhr, and Johan has awoken. But putting that verse in the book would have been major spoilers. Well, the dispute among theologians is so heated because they believe it's literally a matter of life and death and the salvation of their eternal souls. That's quite different from playing with seeing how an author might've crafted his story to fit an existing Bible passage. :D But I certainly wouldn't consider it a spoiler for an author to actually tell us how his story ends! :D With that thinking, you could say the title is a spoiler. JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Toph, the literal translation of that is "All of the world placed in his hands." What are you literally translating? I've looked around for that seal and haven't found anything that sheds any light on it. Your interpretation of it sounds better than anything I can think of. |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 238 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63004461 12-22-2011 02:34 PM JohanT wrote: And do you recall what Schuwald said? "The only thing that can defeat a monster is a greater monster". I guess I always figured that meant that either only Johan could destroy Bonaparta, or that he was saying that Tenma would have to become a monster in order to stop Johan. But that's just the opinion of the Vampire of Bayern. :) It didn't actually turn out that way. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 239 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63005901 12-22-2011 03:00 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: JohanT wrote: And do you recall what Schuwald said? "The only thing that can defeat a monster is a greater monster". I guess I always figured that meant that either only Johan could destroy Bonaparta, or that he was saying that Tenma would have to become a monster in order to stop Johan. But that's just the opinion of the Vampire of Bayern. :) It didn't actually turn out that way. I used to think of it that way as well. But for some reason, I like my over-complicated (and probably completely incorrect) analysis :D. I think the reason for my preference is because I believe there is no true monster. In reality, the view of a monster is that of an antagonist, something that will harm you. And to the monster, its true enemy will be regarded as the greater monster... Now, a thought that came to mind when writing that last sentence was whether the monster would regard the other as the "greater" monster, as something superior... Is a man who kills a monster a monster himself? Would killing the inhuman reinforce your humanity or your inhumanity? That is a question that I attempt to address, but to no avail. I think the characters in Monster are of the mind that murder will only serve to create a monster, regardless of who the victim is... Not sure if I agree, but who am I to argue with Naoki Urasawa? :D |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 240 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63005815 12-22-2011 05:26 PM GinaSzamboti wrote: JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: If it is the case that everyone knows what he already looks like, it would be pointless to scribble a picture of him, no? Unless he was there. Even if Weber was unsure if the man was actually Johan, the most objective clue he could leave behind was an image of the man he saw. If he knew it was Johan, the most objective thing is to say so in writing. And faster and easier and unambiguous. Which is why it seems to me that he didn't know who it was, and could only draw his image. That's why I latched on to the cousin theory. It explains so many things, like the reason for including the detail about Anna thinking her twin was alive (which from a storytelling pov is a pointless red herring otherwise), why a sketch and not words, who the consortium that bought up The Sleeping Monster is pinning their hopes on... It just seems to me like Füer is the Bonaparta to the new Johan. Or, if he's just a figment of my imagination, then the real Johan. :) The people who knew Viera maintaining "a secret of the present" could point to that, but how would her friends know about a living twin? That red herring sounds to me like it coincides with Bonaparta giving back her name "Anna." I still don't undertand that one. The best thing I can come up with is that Anna lives through Viera in a sense. The one most loved is the same as she. This is one stubborn riddle. Bonaparta, what you thinking? I do remember reading this discussed earlier so I'll go back to that. But for the sketch, I don't think Weber would have assumed it was a cousin. He would have assumed it was Johan if he knew what he looked like, based on how the sketch looks exactly like him. JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: As for dissecting Revelation, I agree with TophBeiFong in that wasn't meant to be that literal. There's enough dispute among theologians in the west about what all that means, how many dragons there are, what they stand for, etc. For a Japanese writer to a Japanese audience, I don't believe those details have the same impact or significance, but the general idea is what counts. I take it to mean that second beast is supposed to be Fuhr, and Johan has awoken. But putting that verse in the book would have been major spoilers. Well, the dispute among theologians is so heated because they believe it's literally a matter of life and death and the salvation of their eternal souls. That's quite different from playing with seeing how an author might've crafted his story to fit an existing Bible passage. :D But I certainly wouldn't consider it a spoiler for an author to actually tell us how his story ends! :D With that thinking, you could say the title is a spoiler. True true, but the symbolism seems to be going too far. The title says there's another monster, but the verse would give away that Johan is back. Then the final sketch would be redundant. JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Toph, the literal translation of that is "All of the world placed in his hands." What are you literally translating? I've looked around for that seal and haven't found anything that sheds any light on it. Your interpretation of it sounds better than anything I can think of. I was translating せかいのすべてがてにはいる or 世界のすべてが手に入る。 |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 241 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63006319 12-22-2011 06:06 PM Is a man who kills a monster a monster himself? Would killing the inhuman reinforce your humanity or your inhumanity? That is a question that I attempt to address, but to no avail. I think the characters in Monster are of the mind that murder will only serve to create a monster, regardless of who the victim is... Not sure if I agree, but who am I to argue with Naoki Urasawa? Sort of like what I was saying before, many of the villains of Monster (and hey, we'll throw in Hitler as well), have the mindset that they are ridding the world of bad, useless people, or other monsters. It's monsters killing other monsters all the way down. It's the act of demonizing another human being to the point where you place yourself as the judge of whether they deserve to live that is the real evil. That is Tenma's dilemma, would he, like the Baby, the "no smoking!" guy, and Johan, and Richard when he shot the boy---assume the right to judge the value of someone else's life? Has anyone read the Lucifer Effect by any chance? It's a great book that talks about this. Basically it demonstrates that one the main reasons normal people have come to be involved in committing horrible mass genocides is because they were able to convince themselves that the people they were torturing/killing were inhuman. That's the danger of it all. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 242 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63008311 12-22-2011 06:13 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: GinaSzamboti wrote: If he knew it was Johan, the most objective thing is to say so in writing. And faster and easier and unambiguous. Which is why it seems to me that he didn't know who it was, and could only draw his image. That's why I latched on to the cousin theory. It explains so many things, like the reason for including the detail about Anna thinking her twin was alive (which from a storytelling pov is a pointless red herring otherwise), why a sketch and not words, who the consortium that bought up The Sleeping Monster is pinning their hopes on... It just seems to me like Füer is the Bonaparta to the new Johan. Or, if he's just a figment of my imagination, then the real Johan. :) The people who knew Viera maintaining "a secret of the present" could point to that, but how would her friends know about a living twin? That red herring sounds to me like it coincides with Bonaparta giving back her name "Anna." I still don't undertand that one. The best thing I can come up with is that Anna lives through Viera in a sense. The one most loved is the same as she. This is one stubborn riddle. Bonaparta, what you thinking? I do remember reading this discussed earlier so I'll go back to that. But for the sketch, I don't think Weber would have assumed it was a cousin. He would have assumed it was Johan if he knew what he looked like, based on how the sketch looks exactly like him. Yes, we did briefly talk about Viera and Anna, and I said something akin to what you are getting at. To quote what I initially said: I actually like the idea that Johan's mother's twin is dead, and that she, though dead, was the wanted child. Perhaps this shows something, for the fact that the mother gave Nina away may have been an action of love, as the one most loved was the dead twin... But there is a natural confusion, for who did she mean to give away? Perhaps it is a bit far-fetched, for it would ruin the fact that Johan may have been living the lives of both his sister and himself as an initial expression of love... Or, if people happen to like this idea, it could also suggest that Johan was the one most loved. He was, in a sense, "dead", as his identity was merely a physical manifestation of his sister. AND The twin could be alive, but in the sense that the twin's life is carried on through Anna herself... The term "alive" is much more ambiguous than I'd like to think, but Urasawa does seem to love his ambiguity! I would argue that Johan's mother herself lacked the mental concept of "living", just as her son did. In Urasawa's world, the physical sense of the word ceases to exist. Another case of the subjective winning out against the objective. I think we are on the same page on this one. However, I think I need to clarify once again in my own mind exactly what being "the most loved" means. We have already debated about the negative connotations of the term, as well as the positive aspects. Does it mean to be chosen or not chosen? Living or dead? Nameless or named? | ||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 243 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63008985 12-22-2011 06:35 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: Is a man who kills a monster a monster himself? Would killing the inhuman reinforce your humanity or your inhumanity? That is a question that I attempt to address, but to no avail. I think the characters in Monster are of the mind that murder will only serve to create a monster, regardless of who the victim is... Not sure if I agree, but who am I to argue with Naoki Urasawa? Sort of like what I was saying before, many of the villains of Monster (and hey, we'll throw in Hitler as well), have the mindset that they are ridding the world of bad, useless people, or other monsters. It's monsters killing other monsters all the way down. It's the act of demonizing another human being to the point where you place yourself as the judge of whether they deserve to live that is the real evil. That is Tenma's dilemma, would he, like the Baby, the "no smoking!" guy, and Johan, and Richard when he shot the boy---assume the right to judge the value of someone else's life? Very well said. This relates to what I had said in an original conversation, about seeking judgement from others in the form of those you wronged. Tenma's dilemma is more or less his own nature, for he is a man who is said to judge no one. And because of this, Johan's plan for Tenma to kill him is flawed, yet challenging. Is it just to judge an inhuman monster? Of course, it is interesting that all that occurs is through Johan's own will. Truly, Tenma will not be placing any judgement on him, for it is Johan's wish to die by his hand. In this case, would Tenma have shot him, had Nina nor Wim's father not intervened? Would his inability to place human beings on a scale of worthiness come into play at all, if all is happening because Johan desires it? Hmm...we may never know. While I agree that humans judge others because they see them as the true "monsters", I also think that the concept of power plays a role. As Toph pointed out before, and as you have just pointed out, killing is a form of gaining power over a human being's will, for you are depriving them of life. While I do not believe that it is the ultimate form of control, I do think that since humans in general gravitate towards power and domination, it is natural for them to see killing others as such. After all, the ability to place judgement is a power in itself. Has anyone read the Lucifer Effect by any chance? It's a great book that talks about this. Basically it demonstrates that one the main reasons normal people have come to be involved in committing horrible mass genocides is because they were able to convince themselves that the people they were torturing/killing were inhuman. That's the danger of it all. I have read it (parts of it, at any rate), but that was in 8th grade, a good few years ago! :D So my memory is hazy, to say the least. | ||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 244 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohnJacobSchmidt - Message ID#: 63008311 12-22-2011 09:02 PM JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: I was translating せかいのすべてがてにはいる or 世界のすべてが手に入る。 ::headdesk:: I remember seeing that, then somehow skipped right on over it in my notes when I was trying to parse that out. D'oh! Did I know you have the book? You could be verrrrry useful... >.> JohnJacobSchmidt wrote: The people who knew Viera maintaining "a secret of the present" could point to that, but how would her friends know about a living twin? That red herring sounds to me like it coincides with Bonaparta giving back her name "Anna." I still don't undertand that one. The best thing I can come up with is that Anna lives through Viera in a sense. The one most loved is the same as she. This is one stubborn riddle. Bonaparta, what you thinking? I do remember reading this discussed earlier so I'll go back to that. But for the sketch, I don't think Weber would have assumed it was a cousin. He would have assumed it was Johan if he knew what he looked like, based on how the sketch looks exactly like him. Heh, that's where we differ, I guess. I don't think it does look exactly like him. Seems a bit thinner in the face, and wavier of hair, but of course, being in a coma for a few years can do that to you (major bed head!). :) Eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't think the secret of the present is Anna/Viera's. It could be people who know where she is not coming forward to protect her privacy, but it could also be people who knew about the whole project keeping secret the fact that it hasn't ended. I guess I see in that sentence a hint that the twin is alive, because a) Weber had wondered why no one had come forward claiming to be Anna, this beautiful, genius student, and b) if the twin were alive, there's a reason no one who knew her came forward to identify her as the person in the sketch. And Hana knew about the twin. Do you think she thinks the twin is alive? She insists Viera isn't crazy for thinking so, yet she still calls it a delusion, so I don't know. One stubborn riddle indeed! Of all the places for Weber to decide to keep his thoughts to himself! >:/ |
||
| TophBeiFong Posts: 145 Registered: 09-05-2011 Message 245 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to KrillXIII - Message ID#: 56598798 12-22-2011 09:18 PM I'm away for less than a day and the posts keep coming! I'm both excited and overwhelmed at the same time. I guess the best way to go about this is to address each poster individually according to who brought what topic up first... JohnJacobSchmidt Hmm...if the literal translation is "All the world placed in his hands," then beeluke's translation was closer than the Spanish one. And yes, it is interesting to note that he was satisfied when he saw that there were a lot of people that were well loved. It sort of points to the theme of equality. Yet people aren't satisfied with equality. He may have forgotten about it, but perhaps deep down he was still wanting something more. So when he figured out how to open the cave, he ran straight there instead of helping the woman. (And if he is in fact her child, then that makes it even more interesting...) But your point about the monster being used to solve people's problems is a nice way of thinking about it too. Do we become monsters because of our despair? And yeah, I'm not going to deny that Lunge (yeah, I know that it's Runge and not Lunge, but I've been using Lunge and I don't want to switch now) may have inspired my thoughts a little. No clue about the symbol on the rock, though. JohanT (My, aren't you a prolific poster? XD) Oh crap, I didn't notice that part of JohnJacobSchmidt's other post! So what could this mean? Does it describe the relationship between Johan and Bonaparta, with Johan as the beast and Bonaparta as the dragon? Or is Fuhr the dragon, taking Johan's place? Your interpretation about neither the lesser or the greater monster being truly evil, but only viewing the other as evil, is interesting indeed. But I prefer the "he who fights monsters" interpretation myself. ...Wait, actually, the two interpreations aren't incompatible. You may become a monster by fighting a monster, but who is to say that one is actually worse than the other? This goes with what JJS (mind if I abbreviate?) said about the Lucifer effect. Each side demonizes the other side, but could it be that neither of them are monsters, only confused human beings? This goes well with what Reichwein said about there being no such things as monsters. ;) Now as for TAM, I was sort of analyzing it from the perspective that he is the child the woman is looking for. If he is that child, then why didn't he go to her instead of opening up the cave? That's what I meant by rejecting the love. Though perhaps to say it in a better way, he conflated love with greed/power/ambition. He saw what was missing in his life right in front of him, but he didn't realize it. So in that way, he would be rejecting love. Of course, this interpretation doesn't work as well if he isn't the woman's son. Yet it could still be what was missing in his life. Everyone else was loved, but he had no one to love him. But your take on it (a mother's love unleashes the monster) is a good way of looking at it too. Having someone place you above all others... Oh, and nice observation about Milosh and Karl. As for the Revelation stuff, I think that Johan's sense of self is, ironically, not having a sense of self. Who he is happens to be no one. So if you give him his true name, he'll no longer be himself, would he? He would no longer be the monster. Thus, the monster is killed that way. (I admit this was partially inspired by reading something on another forum. This person said that giving a monster a name and acknowledging it as a human would defeat the monster...or something like that.) Also, I think Johan definitely wanted to erase himself (that's part of what he based his sense of self on too). But by getting a name, he would exist again. ...Johan Liebert: Man of Paradoxes, ladies and gentlemen! XD Gina LOL, I know how you feel! :-D When I came back after my finals, I didn't really know where to begin. I might give my thoughts about The Door That Must Not Opened at another time...maybe. XD This kinda makes me glad that we're discussing this on a forum and not in person, since I'd imagine I'd never get a word in edgewise if it were the latter! And as for Astro Boy references, while I'm not that familiar with it, maybe the fact that the protagonist is named Tenma is meant to be a parallel? Johan says that Tenma is like a father to him because he saved his life, yet Tenma is rather taken aback by that, and doesn't like the fact that the person he saved is a monster. Tezuka's Dr. Tenma created Astroy Boy to replace his deceased son, but he was disastified with him because he could never be his real son. So we have two people who gave life to someone and both not liking what came of it. Though in this case, the roles are somewhat reversed in terms of who is good and who is bad. Urasawa's Tenma is certainly more benevolent than Tezuka's Dr. Tenma (though I think I recall reading on Wikipedia or something that in some versions he's toned down a bit) and Astro Boy is a hero while Johan is a villain. You could say that both Tenmas have a similar problem, yet their approaches differ. Tezuka's Tenma outright disowns Astro and abandons him, while Urasawa's Tenma seems to be torn between sympathy and hatred toward Johan, as it appears that he really wants to understand Johan but is also driven to stop him. And from what little I know, Astro Boy is able to overcome his creator's rejection of him and become his own person (or robot) while Johan...well, I don't think any explanation is necessary. I guess that will be all for now. There's something else I want to get into, but I'll save it for later. I'm tired of typing. :p |
||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 246 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63013253 12-22-2011 09:40 PM I had considered the names more of an homage than anything to do with the story really, but that was an interesting comparison of the Tenmas, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn at least some of that was rattling around inside Urasawa's head while writing Monster. :) |
||
| JohnJacobSchmidt Posts: 16 Registered: 12-19-2011 Message 247 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63012865 12-23-2011 01:08 PM Did I know you have the book? You could be verrrrry useful... >.> At your service. Heh, that's where we differ, I guess. I don't think it does look exactly like him. Seems a bit thinner in the face, and wavier of hair, but of course, being in a coma for a few years can do that to you (major bed head!). Eye of the beholder, I guess. I think wavyness is due to quick sketching, when you don't pick up your pencil from the paper. And Hana knew about the twin. Do you think she thinks the twin is alive? She insists Viera isn't crazy for thinking so, yet she still calls it a delusion, so I don't know. I don't think she thinks the twin is alive. Before I meant no one would know about a twin actually being alive, except for people like Bonaparta. Maybe Anna gets her second chance through Johan, symbolically. I really want to get to the bottom of why Bonaparta names Viera, "Anna" While I agree that humans judge others because they see them as the true "monsters", I also think that the concept of power plays a role. As Toph pointed out before, and as you have just pointed out, killing is a form of gaining power over a human being's will, for you are depriving them of life. While I do not believe that it is the ultimate form of control, I do think that since humans in general gravitate towards power and domination, it is natural for them to see killing others as such. After all, the ability to place judgement is a power in itself. I agree, though in the case of Monster, I’d say it was a domination compulsion caused by a victim mentality. There are those who are greedy like Schuwald, and there are those who are resentful. Each side demonizes the other side, but could it be that neither of them are monsters, only confused human beings? This goes well with what Reichwein said about there being no such things as monsters. I like that, I think it was a point the story was trying to get across. We all have monsters in us, and all the monsters are really just people. That’s why you can’t go around shooting people just because you think they’re evil. As for the Revelation stuff, I think that Johan's sense of self is, ironically, not having a sense of self. Who he is happens to be no one. So if you give him his true name, he'll no longer be himself, would he? He would no longer be the monster. Thus, the monster is killed that way. (I admit this was partially inspired by reading something on another forum. This person said that giving a monster a name and acknowledging it as a human would defeat the monster...or something like that.) Also, I think Johan definitely wanted to erase himself (that's part of what he based his sense of self on too). But by getting a name, he would exist again. ...Johan Liebert: Man of Paradoxes, ladies and gentlemen! XD It’s the “speak the name of the demon!” thing. You can’t fight something that you don’t understand, or know exists. There’s a cute children’s book called No Such Thing as a Dragon that illustrates this as well. |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 248 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to TophBeiFong - Message ID#: 63013253 12-23-2011 02:08 PM TophBeiFong wrote: JohanT (My, aren't you a prolific poster? XD) :D Yes, I do tend to get a little overexcited sometimes. Oh crap, I didn't notice that part of JohnJacobSchmidt's other post! So what could this mean? Does it describe the relationship between Johan and Bonaparta, with Johan as the beast and Bonaparta as the dragon? Or is Fuhr the dragon, taking Johan's place? If Fuhr is the dragon taking Johan's place, then that implies that Johan was the dragon initially... Yes, perhaps this is so. What is the beast? Is it actually represented within one human being, or is it, as Jan Suk says, "a ball of evil, that grows and grows"? Johan...could very well have been the dragon who gave power to the beast, who fed it and manipulated it. They worshipped the dragon, mirroring Johan's status as a "messiah" of sorts among his fellow beings... A nurturer of human evil? Your interpretation about neither the lesser or the greater monster being truly evil, but only viewing the other as evil, is interesting indeed. But I prefer the "he who fights monsters" interpretation myself. ...Wait, actually, the two interpreations aren't incompatible. You may become a monster by fighting a monster, but who is to say that one is actually worse than the other? This goes with what JJS (mind if I abbreviate?) said about the Lucifer effect. Each side demonizes the other side, but could it be that neither of them are monsters, only confused human beings? This goes well with what Reichwein said about there being no such things as monsters. ;) I completely agree. But though this may be so, it does not stop us from labeling others as monsters, does it? :D I think JJS brought up the point of murdering others because we ourselves feel we are in the right, whereas we feel that others do not have a right to exist. In all honesty, we are just delusional creatures :D. We cannot call each other monsters if we all have the capability of becomine one... This actually relates back to my personal interpretation of the term "evil", that it, and the term monster, are both nonexistent with regards to human beings. And Dr. Reichwein agrees! :D Now as for TAM, I was sort of analyzing it from the perspective that he is the child the woman is looking for. If he is that child, then why didn't he go to her instead of opening up the cave? That's what I meant by rejecting the love. Though perhaps to say it in a better way, he conflated love with greed/power/ambition. He saw what was missing in his life right in front of him, but he didn't realize it. So in that way, he would be rejecting love. Of course, this interpretation doesn't work as well if he isn't the woman's son. Yet it could still be what was missing in his life. Everyone else was loved, but he had no one to love him. But your take on it (a mother's love unleashes the monster) is a good way of looking at it too. Having someone place you above all others... Oh, and nice observation about Milosh and Karl. I also believe that there are two types of love, as is shown in my example with Milosh and Karl. There is an unselfish and a selfish kind. The selfish kind, in my eyes, is what awakened the monster. To comfort the woman, to help her, would be a demonstration of the unselfish kind... I personally think this plays into what I had said about the concept of remaining "nameless". Is there truly a possibility of love being unselfish? And would such love flatten the monster, keep it from rising? ::frustrated:: As for the Revelation stuff, I think that Johan's sense of self is, ironically, not having a sense of self. Who he is happens to be no one. So if you give him his true name, he'll no longer be himself, would he? He would no longer be the monster. Thus, the monster is killed that way. (I admit this was partially inspired by reading something on another forum. This person said that giving a monster a name and acknowledging it as a human would defeat the monster...or something like that.) Also, I think Johan definitely wanted to erase himself (that's part of what he based his sense of self on too). But by getting a name, he would exist again. ...Johan Liebert: Man of Paradoxes, ladies and gentlemen! XD I agree. What I was trying to say was that killing the monster by giving it a name would be killing Johan as well. I do not believe that Johan, as you say, has a sense of self, as I pointed out in my original post. There is no identity. So, would having a name change him into a human being? Would it actually destroy the monster, if the monster is all that Johan has left? Would it be a real name for the human Johan, if the human Johan's existence is not truly there? I'm sorry if this is a bit unclear, but I suppose that Johan's facade is made of many masks, with little to nothing lying beneath. So which "Johan" (the human or the monster) would you be naming if you gave it a name? And as for Astro Boy references, while I'm not that familiar with it, maybe the fact that the protagonist is named Tenma is meant to be a parallel? Johan says that Tenma is like a father to him because he saved his life, yet Tenma is rather taken aback by that, and doesn't like the fact that the person he saved is a monster. Tezuka's Dr. Tenma created Astroy Boy to replace his deceased son, but he was disastified with him because he could never be his real son. So we have two people who gave life to someone and both not liking what came of it. Though in this case, the roles are somewhat reversed in terms of who is good and who is bad. Urasawa's Tenma is certainly more benevolent than Tezuka's Dr. Tenma (though I think I recall reading on Wikipedia or something that in some versions he's toned down a bit) and Astro Boy is a hero while Johan is a villain. You could say that both Tenmas have a similar problem, yet their approaches differ. Tezuka's Tenma outright disowns Astro and abandons him, while Urasawa's Tenma seems to be torn between sympathy and hatred toward Johan, as it appears that he really wants to understand Johan but is also driven to stop him. And from what little I know, Astro Boy is able to overcome his creator's rejection of him and become his own person (or robot) while Johan...well, I don't think any explanation is necessary. Very interesting comparison. I have never read Tezuka's Astro Boy, nor was I aware that his character was named Tenma! :D If I am to comment on this properly and in detail, I will have to actually read some of it. But regardless, I think your observation about the Astro Boy Tenma abandoning his creation is very telling. It is as though he is being ignored, as though he meant nothing, right? This is in direct contrast to Tenma's treatment of Johan, where he does everything but ignore him :D. And of course, Johan is practically "ignored' by all, but Tenma is different, as his pursuit of him could be interpreted as a strange form of love/hatred, as you point out. At any rate, the emotions felt are strong, and the stronger the emotion, the stronger the attachment and the memory. And I believe that is what Johan sought. To be etched into a memory, as all seemed to forget his existence. Anyways, yeah. I basically just repeated everything you said :D. Sorry. | ||
| GinaSzamboti Posts: 27,612 Registered: 09-16-2003 Message 249 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to JohanT - Message ID#: 63020569 12-22-2011 02:50 PM JohanT wrote: Anyways, yeah. I basically just repeated everything you said :D. Sorry. She's used to it, I do it all the time. ;) I really think it's reading too much into things to see Monster's Tenma as having much to do with Astro Boy's Tenma. Comparisons are very interesting, but beyond an homage, I don't think the character of Kenzo Tenma is in any way illuminated by Astro Boy's Tenma, as far as Monster is concerned. Comparing the two gives more insight into Urasawa than it does Monster, I think. Which is why it's interesting. ;) Btw, I got another email with a scan of the Dorn cover in full color (from an artbook). No question, that's Nameless Monster he's holding. :D I expect she will post it when she joins us. Heh, I feel like the guy under the caption. Or maybe this guy under the caption... :-D |
||
| JohanT Posts: 70 Registered: 12-10-2011 Message 250 of 529 |
Re: Another Monster Reply to GinaSzamboti - Message ID#: 63020953 12-24-2011 08:45 AM GinaSzamboti wrote: I really think it's reading too much into things to see Monster's Tenma as having much to do with Astro Boy's Tenma. Comparisons are very interesting, but beyond an homage, I don't think the character of Kenzo Tenma is in any way illuminated by Astro Boy's Tenma, as far as Monster is concerned. Comparing the two gives more insight into Urasawa than it does Monster, I think. Which is why it's interesting. ;) Agreed. I joined in because I thought the contrast was very intriguing :D. I do not see it as deliberate, the differences in the two characters with regards to their respective "counterparts" (sort of :)), but one would think that naming a character after another could potentially indicate more than just a simple homage... Since I know nothing of Astro Boy, I cannot give my opinion ::frustrated::. Btw, I got another email with a scan of the Dorn cover in full color (from an artbook). No question, that's Nameless Monster he's holding. :D I expect she will post it when she joins us. Heh, I feel like the guy under the caption. Or maybe this guy under the caption... :-D Hmm, I just looked up the cover, and since it is in black and white, I cannot make out the details of the drawing. But, since you say that it is the Nameless Monster, I will go with that :D. I wonder if the fans of Dorn in the Darkness (I am always tempted to write the German title :D) ever bothered to look up that book....it does not seem to have been featured within the story itself, but it evidently holds much significance, seeing as it was featured on the cover... You know, for some reason, while reading Another Monster, I came to the abrupt conclusion of Johan being the author of Dorn in the Darkness... Of course, it was a momentary thing, and I quickly discarded of it :). | ||
5
Spoiler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)