On the face of it, Monster starts off like any other psychological thriller, but soon spirals into an ever-darkening sordid tale of death and malice, or rather, the complete lack of malice. The Monster is swift and many faceted, and seduces, tortures, kills and brainwashes tens, if not hundreds, of people all throughout his life, and this story is as much about stopping the Monster, as it is about uncovering his past and finding out what drives him. I won’t spoil the story, and I recommend you to read it if you can (if you thought the Joker was cool, then wait till you see the destruction and utter bedlam the Monster causes).
The character of the Monster himself merits a series of blog posts, but for now, I am going to focus on the contribution of both chaos and randomness in the formation of the Monster in the book, and monsters in general. In the book, the titular Monster is a part of two scientific experiments, one devoted to eugenics, and the other to mental conditioning, or rather, brain-washing. The objectives of both the experiments were similar, to produce an ubermensch in order to bring back a golden age, and both the experiments failed terribly. This is a premise that has been covered in many other works in many other media, but interestingly, where Monster differs from them is that here, one of the scientists responsible for a horrifying experiment designed to produce emotionless super soldiers atones, or rather, corrects his mistakes, by running another, similar experiment, only this time, he does not teach the children in his care hate and competitiveness, but compassion and team work. The funny thing is, both of his experiments are equally successful. This, to my knowledge, is one of the few times someone has actually been condition to be a loving and caring person (and that someone doesn’t turn into a villain later into the story) not because of purely moralistic or religious, but as part of scientific experiment.
Both the conditioning experiments relied on two simple premises: i) all humans have capacity for great compassion and great apathy, and ii) with the correct training, it is possible to mould a person into any shape you want. Deriving directly from the above, one of the biggest questions the manga poses is if it is possible for a person whose experiences (both natural experiences in a life of freedom and controlled experiences in an institution) have driven them to a point where it is impossible for them to switch over to the other side, whether it is possible for a true Monster to become a saint, or vice versa. And if such a change is possible, what sort of an event could bring it about. This question is answered time and again in the Manga itself in the form of several primary and secondary characters: a certain Czech author, Grimmer, Pedrov, a certain German cop to name just a few, but with the case of the titular Monster, the question itself changes in a fundamental way. For all the other characters, the a fundamental event changes their way of thinking and they shift from the darkness to light, but the titular Monster, even after experiencing a truth that ordinarily would induce a crippling breakdown, does not change in his Monstrosity. He still manipulates and kills indiscriminately, but his goal changes from bringing about an apocalypse to re-creating his first act of… well read the manga to find out more.
The above in itself raises several different ‘what if’ questions. What if the revelation of the truth was done in a different way, in a different setting, would that have effected a different reaction from the Monster? What if the truth was revealed at a different point in time, would that have made a difference? What if the Monster was so far gone, that no revelation would have redeemed, or even changed him? What if the Monster was so beyond redemption, that the truth revealed could only change him, not redeem him? What if the Monster had not been a part of either, or both of the experiments, would he still have turned out this way? What if the Monster had been part of the experiment based on compassion? What if there was something irredeemable with the Monster since the beginning, and the experiments merely amplified it… etc. etc.
While these speculations are relevant only with the context of the manga, the broader questions are much more relevant in both real life and other works of art. What if Hitler had not been rejected from the art school? Would he still have become a violent megalomaniac, or would he have used art as a means of expressing his internal disquiet? And would Germany not have hurtled towards an extremist society, or would the inertia of history itself have propelled the world to another war? What if Laxman had not mutilated Supa-Nakha thus, would Ravana still have reacted the way he did? What if Narada Muni had not appeared to Kans? What if Sirius and James not tormented Severus? What if Tom Riddle’s father had actually accepted his wife and son?
While a deterministic approach based on causality can answer many of these questions to a largely satisfying extent, or at least allow us to reach a set of conclusions, there does remain a fundamental element of randomness in all these situations and characters, an element which cannot be determined solely using the information given in said situations. Very simply, that element is the question: “was there a basic malice in all these characters, a propensity to do evil, something that could not be deviated or redeemed?”
It is that, that determines what makes a monster.
No comments:
Post a Comment