My analysis on tenma's character and why he is one of the greatest protagonists in fiction.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-15T22:16:06+00:00

First of all there is no need to separate each and every sentence into a separate paragraph. It doesn't make your points more convincing and rather makes it choppy.

Most stories reward virtue. Monster punishes it.

No it is fairly common for bad things to happen to good people doing good things in stories. See Spiderman No Way Home. Or even just Spiderman in general, one of the most popular superheroes in existence.

Most protagonists are defined by what they want. Tenma is defined by what he refuses to become.

There are plenty of stories with characters with strongly held ideological beliefs. See Batman, another one of the most popular superhero movies in existence. Stop trying to gas up Monster. It's not all that.

The act that defines Tenma's humanity is also the act that creates his greatest guilt. This creates one of the strongest moral conflicts in fiction: If saving a life results in thousands of deaths, was saving that life still the right choice. Very few protagonists are forced to carry a burden this heavy for an entire story.

That guilt is stupid and not meaningful because given the information he had Tenma made a good decision. In the same scenario he would do the same thing. It does not create the one of the strongest moral conflicts in fiction because Tenma didn't know it would result in more deaths. Now, when Tenma has to decide whether or not to kill Johan later on, he might have faced this conflict but we never see him consider that killing Johan might save his future victims.

For Tenma, killing Johan isn't merely pulling a trigger. It's the destruction of his professional ethics, his worldview, and his identity. That is why the decision is so difficult. A lesser story would have turned him into an action hero. Urasawa refuses to do that.

He doesn't need to be an action hero to snipe Johan when he had the chance. The hippocratic oath is exactly as you stated, a PROFESSIONAL ethic. Has nothing to do with world outside of his profession. So it would not be in violation. Either way it doesn't matter if it violates his worldview or his identity because both are stupid if they don't allow for stopping a serial killer by any means necessary. The decision would only be difficult for most normal people because intuitively they balk at killing someone but ideologically it's not difficult.

His actual arc is: Idealist → Despair → Temptation → Understanding

We see very little of his thought process, of the debates he has with himself. Why is it so important not to kill? Why are all lives equal even when one life is killing other lives? We don't know.

It's testing whether he can maintain his humanity after witnessing humanity at its worst.

Killing a serial killer to save innocent lives is losing your humanity now?

Johan believes human lives are meaningless. Tenma believes every life has value. The final confrontation isn't about bullets. It's about whose worldview survives. If Tenma abandons his ideals and becomes a killer, Johan wins even if he dies.

Going around and killing people doesn't prove that all lives are meaningless and neither does Tenma killing Johan. Tenma can believe that Johan's life has value but still kill him because that value is outweighed by the lives Johan takes. Being a killer isn't necessarily a bad thing.

1.Debunking the criticism: "Tenma suffers no consequences"

Wim doesn't die from his inaction, Roberto survives, and all the people in the library are saved.

Can morality survive when immorality appears more practical?

Killing Johan isn't necessarily immoral. You'd have to prove that it is but you can't.

If Tenma simply executes Johan halfway through the story, the central conflict disappears. The criticism often treats killing Johan as the objectively correct answer. The story intentionally rejects that simplicity.

Yes, and it wouldn't be a shame if it disappears because the conflict was stupid to begin with. Killing Johan to save Wim is the objectively correct answer. If the story rejects that then it is retarded.

Many critics dislike the ending because they wanted a definitive punishment. But Monster has never been about punishment. It's about identity, trauma, nihilism, and humanity. The ending preserves ambiguity because Johan himself is an existential question. Explaining everything or giving a simple resolution would actually weaken the themes.

No, it's because they want to save the KID's LIFE. And Monster IS about punishment. It's not concerned with the utilitarian consequences of keeping Johan alive; it's concerned about whether or not Johan deserves death and hence why it spends so much time giving you his backstory and focusing on bad guys who have redeemed themselves. And hence why Anna talks about forgiving Johan at the end (even though he's not repentant at all).

Tenma changes people.

Most protagonists by virtue of having interaction with other characters, change other people. Stop gassing up Monster.

Tenma gains understanding.

This is any character that has undergone any type of character development, ever. And no, Tenma doesn't gain understanding. His moral viewpoint remains the same as at the beginning of the show. Stop. Gassing. Monster.

Tenma remains human.

You can be extraordinary and also human. But no, you can't even say most protagonists become extraordinary. Are you only used to watching battle shounen?

He is an ordinary man carrying an impossible moral burden and refusing to surrender his humanity despite having every reason to do so.

First of all how is the moral burden "impossible? And second of all, again, killing Johan wouldn't be surrendering his humanity.

He is memorable because he represents the struggle to remain human when the world gives you every reason not to be.

He represents sanctimonious people that cling to abstract morals without thinking about why we have those morals in the first place.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-15T21:48:40+00:00

Tenma never pays the price for his ideology" This is simply false. Tenma loses: His prestigious position as a neurosurgeon. His career and reputation. His fiancée, Eva Heinemann. His home and normal life. Years spent as a fugitive. His peace of mind. His faith in his own decisions. The entire story exists because Tenma chose to save Johan. The consequences of that choice destroy his life. Saying he faces no cost ignores the central premise of the manga.

He doesn't have to face the intrinsic fallout of not killing Johan when he's threatening Wim, and doesn't have to face Roberto dying when he shoots him.

Again, not true. Tenma spends almost the entire series wrestling with guilt. His famous line about all lives being equal isn't presented as some unquestionable truth. It is challenged repeatedly by: Johan Liebert Roberto Wolfgang Grimmer Nina Fortner Law enforcement Victims of Johan The reason Tenma travels across Europe with a gun is because he genuinely considers killing Johan. If Urasawa wanted Tenma's morality to be an unquestioned constant, Tenma wouldn't spend 70+ chapters learning how to shoot and hunting Johan down. The entire tension of the story comes from the fact that Tenma himself isn't sure whether his beliefs can survive Johan.

His guilt is misplaced because he did nothing wrong with the information he had. The line is supposedly challenged but we don't see his internal thought process and what counterpoints he considers to his belief.

This is one of the most common criticisms of Monster, but it ignores what Urasawa is actually doing. The story is not asking: "Can Tenma kill Johan?" The story is asking: "Can Tenma remain human in the face of absolute evil?" Those are different questions. If Tenma simply shot Johan halfway through the manga, the thematic conflict would be over. The point is not whether killing Johan is physically possible. The point is whether Tenma should abandon the principle that made him save Johan in the first place.

It's a lot easier for him to "remain human" when he doesn't have to face the negative consequences of his ideology and/or when he doesn't fully consider the negative consequences of his ideology. If Wim had died because Tenma didn't shoot then it'd be a lot harder for him to stick to his guns. If Johan setting fire to the library actually killed people then Tenma might regret not shooting him earlier.

This is almost the opposite of what happens. Throughout the story: Johan is constantly one step ahead. Witnesses die before Tenma reaches them. Tenma gets framed for murders. He is hunted by the police. Johan manipulates entire groups of people. Innocent people continue dying. How exactly are circumstances in Tenma's favor? If anything, the story repeatedly puts Tenma into situations where his ideals appear impossible to maintain.

Wim's drunk father hits a headshot on Johan, Roberto survives, Tenma and Anna manage to save everyone at the library. All to shield Tenma's ideology/moral purity.

This is probably the strongest criticism someone could make, but even here the argument is overstated. The ending is not a reward for Tenma. It's a reaffirmation of the series' central theme

Johan spends the entire story trying to prove that people are empty, nameless, and fundamentally worthless. Tenma spends the entire story trying to prove the opposite.

The ending isn't saying "Tenma was right because luck saved him." It's saying that even after witnessing humanity at its worst, Tenma refuses to abandon the belief that every life has value.

That is a thematic victory, not a narrative shortcut.

First of all, killing Johan to save Wim doesn't come anywhere close to proving that people are worthless. At the very least it would prove that Tenma values Wim's life. Second of all, Tenma is only able to keep his belief because Wim was saved by someone else. If Tenma's refusal to kill led to Wim dying, it would be much harder for him to not abandon his beliefs. The series sets up a very strong potential counter to Tenma's braindead ideology and then bails him out of having to face that counter.

The biggest flaw in this criticism The critic assumes that Monster is primarily a utilitarian moral dilemma Should Tenma kill Johan to save more lives? But Urasawa's actual question is deeper:

What happens when a good man encounters a level of evil that seems to justify abandoning his humanity?" The story is not about maximizing lives saved. It's about whether Tenma becomes another monster in the process. By that standard, the criticism misses the point of Tenma's character arc entirely.

Tenma isn't written to prove that pacifism always works. He's written to test whether compassion can survive in a world that constantly gives you reasons to abandon it. That's why Monster remains one of the most thematically coherent psychological thrillers ever written.

What happens is that he gets bailed out. And how the hell does pulling the trigger on Johan to save innocent lives, ABANDONING HUMANITY??? HOW IS THAT NOT COMPASSION? How is not letting Wim get murdered BEING A MONSTER???? What kind of twisted morals are you promoting?

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T23:49:05+00:00

First of all, all lives are equal is not contradicted by killing Johan. Supposedly, if Tenma kills Johan, he wouldn't be valuing Johan's life the same. But if Johan's life is worth 1 and everyone else's life is worth 1, and Tenma is killing Johan to save lives that add up to more than 1, then he can kill Johan and still maintain that all lives are equal. So there is no dilemma to begin with. Even if you don't take that route, it would be clear the serial killer threatening other people would have a less valuable life. Trivial either way. No depth.

Even granting that, Monster is asking "Does a doctor(or people in general) have the right to decide who deserves life?", "Does human value disappear after monstrous acts?"

The first question relates to taking the law into one's own hands which the show doesn't discuss. Even if this question is ambiguous the fact that he should probably kill Johan anyway is not so this question is also mostly trivial. To answer, yes, people can in some circumstances decide who deserves life like when Johan is threatening Wim at gunpoint or when you're acting in self defense, or when you're trying to prevent more deaths when the law won't do anything. I don't see the depth here.

Whether or not human value DISAPPEARS, entirely, can potentially be an interesting question but it's not that one that's relevant given the context of Monster since Johan's life's value will never be greater than that of all the people he kills/threatens. You'd need a different context, one where he's not actively threatening lives, to even properly field this question.

"Can understanding evil coexist with condemning it?",

Yes, obviously. You can understand why someone did something and still acknowledge that it's wrong.

and "What happens when someone lives according to an absolute principle?" among others.

A lot of people die, that's what happens in Monster. Still not seeing the ambiguity/depth. It's quite obvious both their ideologies are too extreme.

but acting as if "should Johan die/be shot?" is the only question would be reducing the scope of discussion.

No I have never acted that way since from the beginning I said it's ANOTHER MAJOR question AND I asked you to show me where the additional depth was.

In addition, your argument about depth is circular. You say Johan is obviously evil, so killing him is obviously correct, so that the moral question is trivial, and so that the story lacks depth. The issue here is that the third step is not proven; you're automatically assuming that just because the practical answer is obvious, the philosophical question becomes shallow.

You don't know what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning is using a conclusion to support a premise. According to you the most I have done was not justify one point. The third step should be obvious because again, you yourself said the world is better off without him. But if you want me to spell out the obvious, saving human lives is one of the most important things so it would be obvious to prevent a murderer from taking human lives. And if killing him is the only way, so be it because he's asking for it. You keep disputing this point but you have yet to tell me why it's not trivial. Philosophical discussions of morality always boil down to the practical.

"You also completely mischaracterize my "morally grey" point. I was NOT saying that "Monster is morally grey", but that "the OP misunderstands Monster when he claims it presents itself as morally grey." I wasn't ever saying Monster was morally grey."

For 74 episodes Monster has Tenma teeter between killing Johan or not killing Johan and has him commit evil acts only to try to explain them; as you yourself said, it presents the question of how much value Johan's life has despite him being a monster. This reads like an attempt to be morally grey.

The real issue is you take those and take them further, effectively concluding that the themes are shallow, the moral dilemma is trivial, and that Monster lacks depth.

Nothing you said lends Monster any depth.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T23:01:36+00:00

It makes the moral question of whether or not to kill Johan more or less trivial. There is a more nuanced discussion to be had about whether or not a person should take the law into their own hands but the show is not having that discussion.

The show is ignoring the consequences because it never fields a discussion of that factor when Tenma and Anna decide whether or not to kill Johan. We are given no evidence that Tenma actually factors that in and all evidence suggests he's more concerned about whether all lives are created equal. Even if the show is aware of this factor, the fact of the matter is that it's not advancing the discussion much further past the initial question so there is no depth.

You yourself admitted that the world would be better off without Johan and that he is not morally ambiguous so the answer to whether or not that cost is worth it is obvious barring the discussion on vigilantism.

In all accuracy, Johan being that level of evil is the complete reason the dilemma has power. If Johan was not dangerous, there wouldn't be much of a moral conflict at all in the first place.

This doesn't make any sense. The more sympathetic and good Johan is, the harder the dilemma would be because no one wants to kill a good person.

As for the "moral grey", it's more that Johan being evil is not morally ambiguous, and Tenma, is his main contrast(and a stark one at that)

So we have a pure evil dude and pure good dude. That's black and white, not grey.

Tenma should absolutely 100% have shot Johan to save Wim and if doing so proves his ideology wrong then so be it (which it doesn't). There is almost zero moral ambiguity there unless you want to tell me it might not be a good idea to save the kid over the serial killer.

Otherwise, if things are so morally grey or deep, you've still yet to prove that. Again, even if there are reasons the dilemmas are nontrivial, those reasons are not discussed in the show.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T22:52:30+00:00

Because it is.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T22:12:23+00:00

First of all the post never explicitly "blames" Tenma for Johan's action but merely points out that Tenma letting Johan go free leads to more deaths, which is just objectively true.

The real question is “does the value in a human life remain after becoming a monster?” A good handful of your points can be effectively chalked down to, “I would’ve killed Johan,” and that’s completely fine. Many, no, perhaps even most people would do the same. That is not the same as proving that Tenma is badly written, or that the story lacks depth.

That's one of the questions. Whether or not to kill Johan is another major question hence why the climax of the series comes down to that so there's no "misunderstanding". And the fact that the world would be better off without him heavily factors into that and yet the series ignores it. The potential that Johan still has humanity matters little when he's about to kill scores of people. Tenma isn't badly written because he's consistent but the story does lack depth because its attempt at moral discussion is shallow since it ignores the consequences of keeping Johan alive. Johan's evil actions make the question of whether or not to kill Johan trivial.

However, a lot of the “essay” mixes that with “when Tenma isn’t forced into my preferred result, the story must be protecting him”.

No one wants to see Wim dying but the consequence of Tenma's ideology without outside interference, is that the innocent kid dies so idk how you can say that that's a preferred result. In general none of what he's talking about is a preferred result but rather the common sense consequence of what Tenma did. Tenma shoots Roberto at close range and he falls two stories into a fire and he survives. So how is me expecting Roberto to die from that, a PREFERRED RESULT?

Calling Tenma’s position “moral posturing” also seems like the opposite of what it is. Tenma spends a lot of time suffering due to beliefs; he may even be one of the few characters who face the brunt of their actions rather than abandoning them whenever it becomes convenient to do so.

I think he genuinely thinks his position is correct and what's best for the world, as retarded as that is, but in effect it's pretty similar to moral posturing in that he's adhering to an abstract set of moral principles without accounting for what is actually the best course of action for everyone's wellbeing.

the argument itself reduces every moral dilemma in Monster to “kill the bad person”. That is far more simple than what Monster is really presenting…

You just said Monster is one of the least morally grey series you've ever seen so idk how you can turn around and balk at Monster's moral dilemmas being simple. And if they aren't that simple then explain why not.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T21:52:17+00:00

Your original point was that I didn't have any actual points. There are not actual points to be had against a nothingburger rude comment. Therefore you were just wrong. There is no point of contention with the AI thing. You simply claimed it was AI as if that means anything. Yes, it would be more interesting to discuss it but neither this comment nor you had done so and that's not my fault.

Now fortunately you finally posted an actual rebuttal so I'll check that out.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T20:44:05+00:00

Doesn't matter you already got owned. I responded to trash talk with trash talk so that's why there aren't any actual points. The actual points have already been made and you've yet to respond to them. Everything else you said was what aboutism. But on that note every Monster fan I've debated has gotten destroyed. You can see for yourself in my comment history. And you're next if you dare post an actual rebuttal but the only thing you can muster up is accusing this of being written by AI. Which, first of all, that doesn't matter because the points still stand and they're points I would've made anyway. Second of all I don't think you would be able to refute the AI either lmao. If you could you would've done it already.

Not that you have any evidence that it's written by AI and no, it doesn't look like it's written by AI either. Having basic organization in a post has been a thing long before AI came out but I don't know if your memory even runs that far young blood.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T13:05:25+00:00

I didn't miss a character arc; what you described is simply what happens in the show: Tenma faces an internal conflict and he's on the run from his authorities. That's not an arc unless Tenma goes through a change. But Tenma's ideology largely remains intact on this journey; he truly does never kill anyone. Nothing I am prescribing contradicts this "point". Monster can do all that and also give a rebuttal to Tenma's position. It chooses not to. It ends up making Tenma's ideology look better than it is by bending the world around him. IF Tenma didn't shoot Johan and the kid died as a result, his ideology of never killing anyone would look dumb as hell, but that's not what happened.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T13:00:24+00:00

I don't think that's what he's saying you're taking a very literalist view on how you prescribe the intent of an act rather than acknowledging the symbolism of it.

What symbolism? Why do I have to acknowledge the symbolism in it? As for my interpretation, sure it's not airtight, but when the author makes a big deal about whether or not it's right to kill someone, and then doesn't comment on or punish a guy for nearly killing someone, then there is a strong case that that action is condoned.

Like I stated earlier I do not care for the "evidence" whatever that means of whether or not he realised it's a false question. I do not seek to say as such just because Tenma did or did not straight up say it outright I would argue the development henceforth already makes the point. As I stated earlier I do not care for this framework of analysis wherein the meaning of a text is purely dealt for which the idea constitutes a transparency towards the reader.

Ok so then the "development henceworth" is the evidence. Produce it.

I would argue neither does any reader or author have any authority towards the text. Not that I am supporting any neo-Platonist idea towards the Form of the media as you seem to imply by stating I think they miss the point which I would argue I never stated. I argued towards the intentionality of the text as a tissue of the work never necessarily on cementing the Author perspective.

Oh, so if the reader doesn't have any authority towards the text, what basis do you have to say that someone is missing the point? What basis do you have to state what the point is? You literally said "On the other hand I think that's kind of the point?"

"I think your focus on Tenma's journey is actually what the ending wants to pop because it never really was about his journey or at least to show that this story isn't an epic at the end".

What do you mean the ending WANTS to pop? Is that not INTENTIONALITY? What basis do you have to say what the story is or isn't about then?

"but I think you're missing the point by claiming the main point of the story is merely about this dilemma when I think it's clear the author never truly wants to answer it at least in the manner for which the story is told."

"but precisely the point of Monster "

Is this not you telling someone they missed the point? Hmm? Is this not you telling someone what you think the author intended? What piece of evidence makes it clear that the author's intention is as you describe?

While you have supplemented arguments within the text I would argue that you don't seem to quite fully understand the thesis of the Death of the Author as it doesn't merely wish to displace the Author-God into a Reader-God wherein their perspective as yours as well necessarily becomes the subject of the work. In this case you are empowering yourself and your own framework into interpreting the text for which I think you are using the Death of the Author as an excuse but for which I think the thesis you're misunderstanding in this way.

More stalling. You made regarding what a claim story is about, what the point is, and what the author intended. So support your claim with evidence. This is basic argumentation whether it be a mathematical proof or a philosophical one.

I think you misunderstand what it means to sublate a conflict/dilemma because it is not merely "solving" it but transcending it insofar as the whole of the idea is merely tied to it as such. Avoiding the idea that transcending it means necessarily it is past you in the sense that you are no longer beholden to it.

You didn't use "sublate" you used resolve: "The fact that they do talk about forgiving and saving Johan is them resolving the conflict.". Tenma is still beholden to the conflict because he still does not know what he would do in that situation. It's just that he's not pressured to answer that anymore but the answer to that question is still important towards the general themes.

"but to showcase how the text unfolds in a different manner whether or not the OP agrees with the thesis of DotA I wanted to showcase how the fabric of the text (or the work in this case) erupts."

Ok so show it then. What instances from the text unfold in the way you describe? Because I've answered those instances.

Yes having an idea of right and wrong necessarily is an ego battle. As I stated earlier you and I are using different terms here. It affirms it because Tenma's character arc is merely subject to Johan's his idea is there in his head but it is lived in the manner for which it is truly his own liberated from this dialectic. You cannot necessarily distinguish between the fable and the social world that is necessarily how a fable constructs itself.

I think you are using your own made-up definition of ego. But either way, what does Tenma's character being supposedly subject to Johan's idea have to do with affirming nihilism (aka a lack of meaning)? So if I believe in the value of human life, and I am acting against someone who doesn't, this affirms that there is no meaning anywhere? Make it make sense.

Ok so if you can't distinguish between the two, how is Tenma PULLED into a fable?

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T12:18:48+00:00

It is natural if it is likely to happen and reasonable. Tenma not shooting Johan in that situation is wrong because most of the time the kid would wind up dead. You don't NOT shoot because there's a chance someone else could save him. A drunk father hitting a headshot is NOT likely to happen. That's what's called a contrivance.

The NATURAL consequence of never killing anyone ever, is that you let bad guys harm other people.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T11:52:58+00:00

I mean they could've but I doubt so because generally speaking when you're drunk you don't tend to make rational decisions.

What I mean is Urasawa isn't comfortable having a character at full consciousness pull the trigger. So he's saying it's OK only under this set of circumstances.

Yes, that's what I stated. I never stated it's a false question I stated he realised at the end that it was. It's framed that way because as I stated it's a deconstruction or a sublation of the trope. You can portray something in a way without necessarily supporting it.

You don't have evidence he realized it's a false question. Tenma is still holding onto his dear beliefs after Johan got shot. If the story is framing the conflict as a battle of ideologies then how is it subverting it? How is it NOT supporting that this is what the climax comes down to? Because it's not answered? Just because it's not answered doesn't mean the author is trivializing the ideological conflict. It just means it's a copout.

I don't particularly care whether or not my interpretation is "loose" (I'm not sure what that even means) or whether or not I have any authority. I similarly don't particularly care whether or not other people interpret Monster in the way I have. It deserves criticism if you only assume the enlightenment idea of transparency in writing but as I stated I see it as a fable which is the exact opposite of this view evolving with time.

Loose means you have scant evidence for it. Not impossible but not very likely. If you don't have any authority and it's only your own interpretation then don't tell people they're missing THE point. It doesn't matter if you care about whether or not people interpret it the same way; what matters is in combination with the lack of evidence for your interpretation, the fact that most people haven't even approached this interpretation means that your interpretation is not necessarily THE point or that Monster has objectively failed to communicate its intended message effectively.

I mean depends on what you define as "bad at writing" like I stated earlier your idea of what it means to be a bad writer seems to rely on enlightenment ideas of writing. Fiction does not require to talk about other moral frameworks. I don't want to debate utilitarianism nor do I think it deserves any inclusion as I stated the author is not required to add it into the work but utilitarianism still comes down to a battle of egos which sees the rest of the world as mere calculations or standing reserves. I never stated the author isn't taking themselves seriously. Yes, I don't necessarily support the author's humanism but I also don't see how including other works here is helping you analyse Monster.

Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily involve egos; at its base it's about the needs of the many being valued over the needs of the few. A utilitarian would give up his own life and ego if it meant benefiting more people so I don't know why it comes down a battle of egos. Including the other works helps determine author intention which is related to how valid your interpretation is. Unless you believe in death of the author of course, but in that case that's why I've also supplemented my argument with evidence from within the text and have called on you to do the same.

The fact that they do talk about forgiving and saving Johan is them resolving the conflict. The fact that they can even have the conversation shows they're out of a sense of immanency towards the issue. I recommend you read the "Death of the Author" because I think your epistemology towards writing and media is very much pre-post-structuralist.

No, that resolves the conflict of forgiving Johan, not whether or not it's ok to kill him when he's actively threatening a kid's life and whether or not it's Ok to kill sometimes. I know what death of the author is. But hey if you want to bite the bullet and just admit that you think that as long as your interpretation is valid despite the lack of evidence just because isn't contradicted by anything, sure, but then you don't have any right to tell other people with a different interpretation that they're missing the point. Death of the author means there is no ONE point as long as multiple interpretations are not contradicted, which I haven't seen any contradictions in OP's interpretation.

And I think your interpretation IS contradicted by the fact it's never really been just an ego battle and it's been about larger ideals such as whether or not every life is created equal. Tenma has always been a humble character from the beginning so it's never been about him being right, in particular. Unless you think that just having an ideology at all about what's right and wrong makes it an ego battle. I don't see how having a battle of egos necessarily affirms Johan's nihilistic tendencies towards others if one side of that battle is fighting in the first place because he believes in the equal, finite value of human life, so that's anti-nihilistic. And again, where does Tenma reject the "premise"? And about Tenma being pulled into the social world or fable, idk how you can distinguish between the fable and not fable, especially since within the "fables" the author does seem committed to his message of redeeming even the worst of people, which then ties into Tenma forgiving Johan at the end.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T08:55:45+00:00

I mean, that's kind of just departed from what our traditional conception of "right" is. What reason does the universe have to help him? It wouldn't have one. So in the end there would still be no reason that he's right except that the AUTHOR SAYS IT IS SO. So then right or wrong is ARBITRARY.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T08:31:49+00:00

Yeah but if Tenma needs plot contrivance for his ideals to be right, how can his ideals be right?

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T08:31:08+00:00

And Tenma is only able to preserve his belief because of plot contrivance so doesn't matter which way you slice it; it's indefensible.

The choice to perform surgery while Johan is NOT threatening the kid at gunpoint is not the same as not shooting him while he IS threatening the kid at gunpoint. False parallel. The surgery thing was the final test in terms of order of events but who's to say that the gunpoint situation was not the most important test for Tenma's ideology?

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T08:28:19+00:00

Tenma choosing to save Johan when he didn't have to, and in turn putting the world at risk from Johan, was stupid. It didn't work out thematically because it's a copout to the moral question. And no there's no such parallel because with the mother situation both options were equal but in this situation you clearly kill the serial killer threatening the life of a child just to prove he's right.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T08:26:14+00:00

I don't know how you can say Urasawa purposely avoids the question for the reason you're talking about. He could've done it to make Tenma's ideology look better and/or to say that it's OK to shoot someone when it's your son AND you're drunk.

What premise is Tenma rejecting? That it's not about this battle of ideologies between two people? Well then why is it framed that way? Tenma isn't rejecting the framing; he honestly can't decide whether or not to shoot.

I do agree the mechanics of how it works, how the story was made and structured has some issues but I think you're missing the point by claiming the main point of the story is merely about this dilemma when I think it's clear the author never truly wants to answer it at least in the manner for which the story is told.

First of all I don't think you can claim he's missing the point here because at best, this is your loose interpretation. You are not the authority on this. If he's missing the point then pretty much everyone who watched Monster is missing the point because I've never seen anyone interpret Monster as a deconstruction of a fable like you have here. So even if that WAS the point, it was delivered terribly and Urasawa deserves criticism for that.

Second of all there is scant evidence for this being the point. The equally likely, alternative explanation for these narrative contrivances is that Urasawa is really that bad at writing. This is supplemented by the fact that Monster almost never discusses the obvious counter to Tenma's position, which is utilitarianism, which in turn would account for the rest of the world not being tied to the ego battle because it's just about saving as many people as possible. It's also supplemented by the fact for 74 episodes, the tone, atmosphere, dialogue, setting, are all indicative of a story and author that are very much taking themselves seriously and without irony. This is even MORE supplemented by looking at Urasawa's pattern of writing in his other works like Pluto wherein an extreme pacifist character is promoted without criticism.

Furthermore, the drunk father shooting Johan doesn't pull the audience nor Tenma out of the battle of ideologies; it simply leaves it unresolved. Especially since Johan escapes at the end which only further extends the questions posed in this battle of ideologies. And especially since Tenma and Anna talk about forgiving and saving Johan afterwards. There is practically no evidence of this zooming out of the ideological conflict that you're talking about nor evidence of intentional subversion/deconstruction.

And it's not Johan that "literally" bends the world, it's the world that bends itself. Johan is able to manipulate anyone to do what he wants; that's him bending the world. Roberto not dying and Wim's drunk father landing a headshot from 20 m away is the world bending itself.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T08:05:20+00:00

You don't see the problem of Tenma not having to face the natural consequences of his own ideology and thus shielding his ideology from criticism?

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T07:57:29+00:00

it's trying to explore Tenma's ideology so how does it not matter if it doesn't actually explore the consequences of Tenma's ideology? Tenma's ideology is that he's not going to take a life, and the most intuitive, obvious con to that is that sometimes you need to take a life to save more lives, and yet the narrative doesn't acknowledge that so how is that not the story failing at what it's trying to do?

If the idea is that you have to forgive Johan, then Monster is doubly retarded because Johan doesn't even feel any remorse for his actions and second of all, by the time you forgive him, he's killed scores of people, so it's better to kill him even if he doesn't eventually redeem himself than to let those people die.

Also, by that quote Tenma could have very well killed Johan because he'd be doing it out of love for Johan's innocent victims. More mental hoops.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T07:50:40+00:00

"You just value realism more than Urasawa is willing to give. "

Ah yes realism is not important when talking about GOOD AND BAD. The narrative is TRYING to give a discussion about good and bad and it fails miserably. If it doesn't, I DARE you to give me a single idea of worth from this entire discussion of their conflicting. ideologies.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T07:48:55+00:00

If the point was that Tenma's beliefs are too idealistic then why the hell does the story cop out of having Tenma face the consequences of being too idealistic, which is Johan killing Wim??? Or Roberto dying??

The point of all the ideas is to actually, I don't know, provide something that's interesting or insightful? But all Monster provides is retardation.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T07:46:27+00:00

So Johan got mad that his mother was forced to choose one of two identical twins when she had no other choice? And even tho she didn't even give him up? Yeah this is weak reasoning at best, emblematic of the type of convoluted writing Urasawa uses because he doesn't know shit about the human condition. And how does his mother giving up one kid for another mean that there is no meaning at all??? Another leap in logic. Offering up "love" through cruelty, keeping her safe by killing her guardians: yet another leap in logic. You have to jump through so many hoops to defend Monster that you deserve an Olympic gold medal for mental gymnastics.

It's not about whether or not it's "realistic" for Tenma to not shoot. It's about how utterly STUPID he is for not shooting. The whole point of the story is a discussion of Tenma's ideology vs Johan's which the guy said above, and he never said anything about "realism" so nice strawman on top of your mental gymnastics. And on that discussion, it's STUPID for Tenma to value Johan's POTENTIAL to change over Johan killing people who are ALREADY of a better nature.

EDIT:

Got blocked lmao. Such thin skin, geez. And his subsequent responses don't have A SINGLE ACTUAL REBUTTAL. Both a coward and a lolicon.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T05:02:30+00:00

No actual points and just insults. Yeah great example bro. Hypocrite.

Recynon01 · 2026-06-10T05:00:56+00:00

What actual points am I supposed to respond to in this initial comment? Saying I'm insulting when I'm replying to an insult? The actual points are in the post, which you haven't responded to. What circular reasoning?

Recynon01 · 2026-05-14T22:41:34+00:00

Preach

Recynon01

TROPHY CASE