GinaSzanboti 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!
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
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...
GinaSzanboti 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.
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
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.
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...
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
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
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!
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.
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
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.
GinaSzanboti 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
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.
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...
GinaSzanboti 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 considerNo, that wasn't what I was getting at at all.
Oh
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
. 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!
I think that I will answer the rest of your message in a later post.
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.
GinaSzanboti 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.
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). 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?
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 . 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 . 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.
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
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".
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:
Spoiler"John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt" is a traditional children's song of obscure origin. Its lyrics are close variations of:
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt,
His name is my name, too.
Whenever we go out,
The people always shout,
"There goes John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt!"
A na na na na na na.
Furthermore, the given name of "Johann" was often given to boys with a secondary given name; when this occurred the secondary given name was often the name one was called by. In the song the English "John" is substituted for the traditional German "Johann".
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....
GinaSzanboti 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.
GinaSzanboti 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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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...
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...
GinaSzanboti wrote: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...
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
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??" 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.
TM & © 2012 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
AdultSwim.com is part of Turner Entertainment Digital which is part of the Turner Sports & Entertainment Digital Network.
