Theory The Romance of Fantasy - The Grand Monet Theory

DKI · Apr 13, 2021

Sorry about that, every time I write I intend to mix it up and maybe a little confusing or messing up, I think I have a habit of doing that.
also yes the sbs about the rabbits, has me curious

D: Regarding Chapter 700... Oops...! Good evening, Odacchi! Regarding Chapter 700, while Luffy and the others are on the way to Dressrosaroba, we can see animals that look like sea rabbits. What does Law like to eat other than Onigiri? P.N. Hasumomo

O: Well, ummm, grilled fish! Alright, next question.

That really has me curious though.

Also to be honest, I have been on here for a month, and I really like to express my thoughts on Monet on Worstgen, I'm really enjoying this website, I'm glad I found it. For some time, I've been looking at the past reddit, discussions,theory,future events about Monet, and mostly they're really negatively like

Reddit user: Even if she isn't dead, there is no real reason for her to join the crew. Even among just enemies she didn't have much interaction with the crew.

(Also it's this) Reddit user :she is dead ,She’s dead. That's ,mostly what I see.

Reddit user: Hurts my head just reading this. Fanboy wants monet to be alive ffs.

Reddit user: She got cut by Zoro, stabbed by Caesar, (probably) inhaled a ton of poison gas, AND was in the PH explosion. Unless she's secretly a disney character, she dead.

Reddit user:
She was stabbed in the heart then exploded after already being hurt and tired.
She is dead. Good riddance too, never understood why some people even liked her. Not an interesting character to me at all

I could be wrong about negatively because I have seen good opinions about it too, and these responses are about 1 year and about 8 years old, maybe these guys change theirs thoughts about it or just the same as today. Youtube viewers were quite like this too, two weeks ago I encounter a viewer, this is what He/She said:

"monet is dead you idiot.. watch or read punk hazard arc again".

"after what happened to her heart and the exploded-laboratory, you still believe that she is survived??? you are a complete delusional moron.. why don't you believe that Ace, Whitebeard and oden are alive too?"

after this,I really just shrugged it off because it's really just another typical viewer who'll just call you a bunch of names. Now my point to all this is, can they confirm her death, if Monet's really dead, where's her fruit, we haven't seen the fruit in Dressrosa, zou,WCI and wano, just how long has it been since Punk Hazard and no cover story too about it and I believe a character is suppose to confirm your death, I don't remember what Domflamingo said about Monet and Vergo but I think it was about sabotaging on what happen on Punk Hazard, but again I could be wrong about this, I'm just wondering how does the confirmation works in One Piece, . That's all I really have to say, you can tell me what you think about any of this, I hope I really didn't too much though.

Also:
sHe BiT a wOm4N shE is 3ViL!!

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 13, 2021

Saint Black said:

Interestingly, most of those responses were directed at me when I posted this theory to Reddit. And yeah, there are a lot of people who are really vocally negative about Monet, but I have a hard time believing that they're the majority. I don't imagine they're a minority either, but I think it's a lot more split than it would seem.

Though the Reddit thread for this theory was constantly downvoted, it was still consistently upvoted as well, and most of the people I talk to in real life about it are much more accepting of what I have to say. Even the people who aren't are far more cordial about it than curt internet responses would have you think.

The thing about people who don't want to believe in Monet though is just that: they don't want to believe. They already don't want Monet to come back, so no matter how much evidence you point to, they won't accept it. They'll plug their ears and ignore you or make ad hominem comments that don't address your points at all, or worse they'll make counterarguments that have no basis in the story.

I recently posted a thread prompting nay-sayers to give me a proper counterargument, and to their credit, some people did try to, but their counters were pretty much all either dismissing Oda's abilities as a writer or making up events that didn't happen in canon.

One person suggested that Monet "couldn't have survived the explosion," even though she was never caught in an explosion at all. When I asked them to elaborate on what explosion they were referring to, naturally they had no response because they knew they were either misremembering the events of the story or that they were lying to call my credibility into question.

To address people saying that Monet's survival would be comparable to Ace or Whitebeard's, they are really not on the same level either textually or narratively. Ace and Whitebeard's deaths were key moments in One Piece that have a lasting ripple effect on the world as a whole and on the characters. Luffy's entire character past the timeskip is predicated on Ace's death, so to bring Ace back would be a tremendous disservice to the plot. Furthermore, Ace was proven dead in three major ways: his body was definitively shown to have died (so the rule of "didn't see the body, still alive" doesn't come into play), his Vivre Card completely disappeared (established to only happen when a person dies), and his Devil Fruit reincarnated (happens when a DF user dies). There was absolutely no wiggle room for Ace to come back, and even if there were, as I said, it would defeat the purpose of Marineford and Luffy's development as a character.

Monet, on the other hand, is missing all of those factors. We never see a definitive corpse (for all we know we only saw her passed out, in line with anyone taking damage to their heart after having it removed by Law), we've never seen her Devil Fruit again, there is no textual reason for her to have died (knocking her out would have served the plot by keeping her from pressing the self-destruct button just as well as killing her) so bringing her back wouldn't invalidate anything that we've already seen, and Oda left wiggle room for her to come back by depicting the shrapnel outside of her heart to imply that she wasn't definitively killed.

You can't even compare Monet's death to Pell or Pound because both of their "deaths" served both a narrative and textual purpose. They were both sacrificing themselves to save who they cared about (text) while also demonstrating how high the stakes were in their respective story arcs (narrative). Both of them surviving undermined the narrative implications that their death scenes held, but they were both minor enough characters that bringing them back isn't too big of an issue, and they ended up being able to contribute to One Piece's overall positive tone, which I think Oda prioritizes over gritty realism.

Monet's death would be completely gratuitous, while her survival would ultimately be able to serve the plot and narrative in various ways, as I detailed in the theory proper.

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2021

DKI said:

And Robin actively helped stage a military coup in an otherwise peaceful nation, resulting in countless deaths and which would have resulted in many more if not for the interference of outside elements she couldn't have possibly accounted for, all for the sake of getting into a single room to essentially read a history book, and it wasn't even the one she wanted. But sure, we can judge One Piece characters based on real-world morality, right?

Saint Black · Apr 13, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

Ahh, I get it now, yes those 3 from above was from the The Grand Monet theory on reddit. I agree with everything you said, I'm really supporting all this. Mostly about the fans of they think about Monet is, I find it equal, 50/50 for one like

1. Many still believe she's alive, returning and possible a straw hat.

2. Many think she's dead and won't return due to being stabbed in the heart

3. Many think Carrot or Nami will get the snow-snow fruit but mostly Carrot.

I find these a very equal term. Plus she isn't forgotten, I'll probably say memorable by going up against Zoro and her character of course, and one of the straw hats biggest personalities is snow

Luffy is all about having weirdos on his crew, and the crew is unique

you got Chopper who is a talking reindeer

you got Frankie who is a cyborg

you got Brook who is a dead walking skeleton.

and you got Jinbei who is a Fisherman

A harpy+snow woman definitely fits the description. What I'm hoping is that 2 women will join and my pick is Yamato and Monet.

And speaking about Nico Robin, now mostly when I think about characters, they all have a tragic past, losing love ones, being cast out from others, half of your island, planet, home is wiped out, that's what we seen from Dc,marvel,naruto,bleach and others so should there still be similarities about the past, hmmm based on I seen, okay so about Nico Robin is that she's mature and has a calmer personality, Monet is humorously flirtatious and by being a harpy, she looks attached to birds, and about archaeologist and astronomer, people can have similar goals, and with science, at least that's where the humanity is still in them, I find that unique like there's two swordsman, two perverts, but their different so what should be the problem about an archaeologist and astronomer on board, well that's what I think in my opinion. I think once we know more about Monet she'll be her own, different personality, her true goal. I hope I made some sense about these.

The things we seen is can a regular human survive multiple volts from Eneru's attacks

Can a human survive 3 times getting all the water suck out it's body

Can a human pick up big pounds of weights as Zoro and it won't do any damage to your spine or back

One Piece is unrealistic and fictional, and hell this is OdaVerse and he's great with the plot twists

Like how Kuma actually save the straw hats by splitting them up

Luffy Grandpa is Garp

Luffy dad is Monkey. D. Dragon

and Ace's dad is Gold Roger

I believe Redemption is possible, it's all up to author to make a character forgivable or unforgivable. Honestly I believed she's a redeemable character, that's what I wanna see first and her backstory. I really liked your theories and the user Syphin made, their really interesting and effortlessly well made. If only Oda Sensei himself could see them :josad:

They're so great. And by all means, correct if I'm wrong about any of this.

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2021

DKI said:

So you seen those type of texts too?............... My man :myman:

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 14, 2021

Saint Black said:

You, you get it.

The Straw Hat Crew is the crew that is, in Oda's words, best described as "Unprecedented in History."

Like you said, Chopper is a reindeerman (and also has a blue nose AND is the only Zoan to have extra transformations), Franky's a cyborg, Zoro is implied to be a descendent of Wano royalty, Sanji is the black sheep of an evil empire that most think is a myth, Robin is the last survivor of a people that speak an ancient language, Nami has a borderline supernatural affinity for the weather which may be tied to the fact that we still don't know anything about her birth parents, and Jinbe, despite being a Fishman, has the ability to communicate with whale sharks, an ability that is supposed to be unique to Merfolk.

Obviously, Monet would fit in with a group like that, there's literally no one else in the entire world that's like her. Even the centaurs basically became their own race with how many Law made, but there's only one harpy.

While I'm a huge supporter of Carrot, that's actually the one point where I think she doesn't quite fit; thus far, she doesn't have anything that really separates her from the rest of the MInks aside from having a clear desire to venture out into the world whereas every other Mink is pretty content staying on Zou. Someone like Pudding, the only known Three-Eyes, or Yamato, the son of the Strongest Creature in the World, would presumably have a lot more to bring to the table, though that remains to be seen.

Saint Black said:

People always say that Monet is too similar to the other girls, but I honestly think that's just because they haven't been paying attention. I can't imagine Monet saying macabre jokes in serious situations with a straight face any better than I can imagine Robin joking about going on a date when someone asks her to follow them somewhere. Though their general cadence is similar, what lines they say and how they deliver them would surely differ from each other. Robin is a more reserved and serious person, tending to hold people at arm's length. Monet, from what we've seen, is a bit more outgoing, conversing with people openly a bit more easily and having a tendency to tease.

Robin says dark things not necessarily intending them to be funny, but Monet says mocking things because she thinks it's funny.

It may not be entirely accurate, but I think we could categorize the Straw Hat girls into the different categories of "dere." Robin, being more reserved and collected, can be considered a kuudere. Nami, having a tendency to lash out and get angry over little things, can be considered a tsundere. Monet, by contrast, generally acts more outgoing with teasing mixed in, potentially putting her in the recently popular sadodere category (characterized by sadism and bullying in varying degrees). Looking at them in this context, we get a better idea of how their dynamics can be differentiated.

On that note, if Carrot joins, I'd qualify her as a bakadere since she's dumb enough to think the ocean is small enough that she could get by with only one meal's worth of food when going sailing.

Saint Black · Apr 14, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

You, you get it.

The Straw Hat Crew is the crew that is, in Oda's words, best described as "Unprecedented in History."

Like you said, Chopper is a reindeerman (and also has a blue nose AND is the only Zoan to have extra transformations), Franky's a cyborg, Zoro is implied to be a descendent of Wano royalty, Sanji is the black sheep of an evil empire that most think is a myth, Robin is the last survivor of a people that speak an ancient language, Nami has a borderline supernatural affinity for the weather which may be tied to the fact that we still don't know anything about her birth parents, and Jinbe, despite being a Fishman, has the ability to communicate with whale sharks, an ability that is supposed to be unique to Merfolk.

Obviously, Monet would fit in with a group like that, there's literally no one else in the entire world that's like her. Even the centaurs basically became their own race with how many Law made, but there's only one harpy.

While I'm a huge supporter of Carrot, that's actually the one point where I think she doesn't quite fit; thus far, she doesn't have anything that really separates her from the rest of the MInks aside from having a clear desire to venture out into the world whereas every other Mink is pretty content staying on Zou. Someone like Pudding, the only known Three-Eyes, or Yamato, the son of the Strongest Creature in the World, would presumably have a lot more to bring to the table, though that remains to be seen.

People always say that Monet is too similar to the other girls, but I honestly think that's just because they haven't been paying attention. I can't imagine Monet saying macabre jokes in serious situations with a straight face any better than I can imagine Robin joking about going on a date when someone asks her to follow them somewhere. Though their general cadence is similar, what lines they say and how they deliver them would surely differ from each other. Robin is a more reserved and serious person, tending to hold people at arm's length. Monet, from what we've seen, is a bit more outgoing, conversing with people openly a bit more easily and having a tendency to tease.

Robin says dark things not necessarily intending them to be funny, but Monet says mocking things because she thinks it's funny.

It may not be entirely accurate, but I think we could categorize the Straw Hat girls into the different categories of "dere." Robin, being more reserved and collected, can be considered a kuudere. Nami, having a tendency to lash out and get angry over little things, can be considered a tsundere. Monet, by contrast, generally acts more outgoing with teasing mixed in, potentially putting her in the recently popular sadodere category (characterized by sadism and bullying in varying degrees). Looking at them in this context, we get a better idea of how their dynamics can be differentiated.

On that note, if Carrot joins, I'd qualify her as a bakadere since she's dumb enough to think the ocean is small enough that she could get by with only one meal's worth of food when going sailing.

Not gonna lie, I was comparing Monet to Nico Robin myself, but for a month now, whenever I look at both of the characters, their designs are different

As for now, you probably know more about Monet than me, honestly. but I agree, Nami, Robin and her, they're all different and I probably may need to paying more attention myself I just want to see more of her, these moments were cool, about her.

and heck, I don't care how many times I'm told she's dead or I'm called an idiot or moron, I'm supporting this 100% for her to be the next straw hat, that's mostly what I love about One Piece is finding the next member. As it is for now in Wano, it seems Carrot or Yamato are next, so guess we'll wait and see about them joining or not.

-Monet4Nakama, I have faith in Oda.

PeperLevi · Apr 14, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

What i am talking about is: With Monet joining Straw Hats(as we want to happen),not make sense to Sugar follow a separate path.
With this,i imagine: Just like Monet,the cruel personality showed by Sugar during Dressrosa was only a facade for fit within Donquixote Pirates,as that was the only place the two had in world. But,with the two reunited and free from Donquixote Pirates,Sugar's sweet side should crop out,and by spend time with Straw Hats alongside Monet,she can find out that they combine and end up joining them too as a child member. What you think?
@DKI @Saint Black @Ravagerblade

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 15, 2021

PeperLevi said:

I think I see what you're saying, my prediction of Sugar's role in the story ends with her and Monet parting and makes no effort to predict what she'll do when on her own.

I was trying to frame the separation as a symbol of growing up since Sugar's been a perpetual child and likely still has a childlike mentality (which wasn't explored very well, but she definitely seemed childish to me), so it makes sense to me for Sugar to become independent by the end of Monet's arc.

I don't really know what she'd do while on her own, but I envisioned it being something like what happened with Miss Goldenweek, breaking off with a handful of members from her crew that escaped the Government and settled down as ordinary citizens. The Donquixote Family was set up literally like a family (grandparents, adults, teenagers and children), so it would be interesting to see them acting the part, but I suppose the story isn't currently set up for that.

I don't think Sugar would stay with Monet if Monet joins the crew proper cus I wouldn't be able to justify Sugar traveling with the crew as if she were a Straw Hat herself. However, if Sugar wants to continue on as a pirate while also being accessible to Monet, there is a way to reconcile both of our desires: she could join Bellamy's new crew.

Remember, Bellamy took a piece of Luffy's Vivre Card, claiming that he wouldn't be a subordinate to him, but the next time we see him is during the Grand Fleet's cover story. His Vivre Card Databook entry states that he's retired from piracy but has taken up flag dyeing with the intention of making flags specifically for Luffy. To me, this implies that one day Bellamy is going to return to piracy (whether he currently knows it or not) and will officially become one of Luffy's subordinates. I've considered the possibility that he'll join the crew as an artist (a role I used to see people constantly insisting the Straw Hats would get for some reason), but it seems more likely that he'll be a Fleet Captain.

If he becomes a Fleet Captain, he'll need crewmates, and I can't think of anyone better than former Donquixote Pirates like Sugar. In fact, I think the New Bellamy Pirates would be a good place for any miscellaneous former enemy to become subordinates to Luffy, though I can't really think of anyone else that would make sense at the moment.

I hope that addresses your concern.

Saint Black · Apr 15, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

I think I see what you're saying, my prediction of Sugar's role in the story ends with her and Monet parting and makes no effort to predict what she'll do when on her own.

I was trying to frame the separation as a symbol of growing up since Sugar's been a perpetual child and likely still has a childlike mentality (which wasn't explored very well, but she definitely seemed childish to me), so it makes sense to me for Sugar to become independent by the end of Monet's arc.

I don't really know what she'd do while on her own, but I envisioned it being something like what happened with Miss Goldenweek, breaking off with a handful of members from her crew that escaped the Government and settled down as ordinary citizens. The Donquixote Family was set up literally like a family (grandparents, adults, teenagers and children), so it would be interesting to see them acting the part, but I suppose the story isn't currently set up for that.

I don't think Sugar would stay with Monet if Monet joins the crew proper cus I wouldn't be able to justify Sugar traveling with the crew as if she were a Straw Hat herself. However, if Sugar wants to continue on as a pirate while also being accessible to Monet, there is a way to reconcile both of our desires: she could join Bellamy's new crew.

Remember, Bellamy took a piece of Luffy's Vivre Card, claiming that he wouldn't be a subordinate to him, but the next time we see him is during the Grand Fleet's cover story. His Vivre Card Databook entry states that he's retired from piracy but has taken up flag dyeing with the intention of making flags specifically for Luffy. To me, this implies that one day Bellamy is going to return to piracy (whether he currently knows it or not) and will officially become one of Luffy's subordinates. I've considered the possibility that he'll join the crew as an artist (a role I used to see people constantly insisting the Straw Hats would get for some reason), but it seems more likely that he'll be a Fleet Captain.

If he becomes a Fleet Captain, he'll need crewmates, and I can't think of anyone better than former Donquixote Pirates like Sugar. In fact, I think the New Bellamy Pirates would be a good place for any miscellaneous former enemy to become subordinates to Luffy, though I can't really think of anyone else that would make sense at the moment.

I hope that addresses your concern.

I thought as maybe since Sugar was locked up, we would only see both of them in flashbacks having interactions, I think if Sugar were to be free, I think she will let Monet make that decision of joining the straw hats and Monet and Sugar having their departure, But I really wouldn't know how would these sisters will feel deeply by emotions or other, since it seems they really much weren't sisters in manga or anime, and after that it was confirmed in an Sbs (we talked about) that they are sisters, and they're both really weren't seen in Domflamingo flashbacks hints why I think we will see that in the future.

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 15, 2021

Saint Black said:

I agree, their relationship had absolutely no focus in the story, and I maintain that I think Oda should have found a way to work in Sugar learning about Monet's supposed death. It would have given a bit more weight to Sugar's character to have her either explicitly seek revenge on those who killed her older sister or to dismiss having any emotional attachment to her altogether.

I'd like to think that Oda put off establishing the sort of relationship they had for a reason, like perhaps wanting to focus on it in a different arc or even wanting to leave it ambiguous how Sugar feels so we're even more surprised by whichever reaction she has when the time comes, but even a little foreshadowing would have been greatly appreciated.

DKI · Apr 15, 2021

PeperLevi said:

I think that the 2 showed different attitudes.
While Monet looked smart, bookish, and ready to put her life at risk for the safeness of her children, Sugar looked childish and her only interest displayed was the one concerning candies. Of the two, i would say only Monet showed what it takes to be a strawhat.
Of course, Sugar may hide a kind personality that was repressed due to her tragic past, we'll see if Oda is willing to explore this aspect.
If Oda stated that the two are sisters, there must be a reason behind it. When we'll get to know the past of the two we for sure will know more. There's the possibility that the only purpose of the two being sisters is that we will know their past throught sugar, and that Monet really is dead, but i am sure this is not the case.

davidobandolim · Apr 15, 2021

Oda just gave just too much into the design, powers and backstory of the sisters. They deserve more panels and chapters in One Piece.

ArturCantSpeakJapanese · Apr 15, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

just want to disagree. pell dying would have undermined the narrative of alabasta, which was entirely about the conflict in leadership between Crocodile, a man who considered every underling disposable if it meant furthering his goal and who considered the idea of personal risk or sacrifice to be laughable stuff for losers, and Vivi, someone who would risk her life to save any citizen of Alabasta, and her friends the Straw Hats, who would do the same for her and her people. Crocodile WANTS them to risk their lives and die and is repeatedly proven wrong and baffled by their resilience and willingness to take what seems like certain death head on by gambling on their own lives.

Pell surviving reinforces these themes because while he gets badly injured, he's still alive. His risk was worth it and he stuck a thumb in fate's eye. If he died, Crocodile would have been proven right, and doubled down. They're willing to die, let them all die.

Something people maybe miss is that Crocodile, like Katakuri, continues laying down out of both measured respect and to think over something that has changed their entire way of thinking. In Katakuri's case its that he can find respect and validation outside of an abusive family, he learns the same lesson Sanji does. In Crocodile's case he learns that playing it safe and using pawns and never gambling on yourself can't compare to the willpower to survive that comes out of fighting for your friends and people you love. And he lets himself get arrested (hes awake, he could have easily just kept fighting, but he chooses not to.) then the next time we see him, he's made genuine friends with Daz Bones, calls him by name and treats him as an ally rather than a subordinate, and risks his OWN life to assist Luffy and Ace. The old crocodile would have just bailed the second he got out of impel down, but he helps out of a sense of newfound honor that would have never developed in him if he'd successfully killed any of the major figures of Alabasta.

And Pell, by all means, is a major figure. He's not a major character but he's enormously important to the people of Alabasta as one of the two guardians and his death would be pretty significant. Much moreso than, say, Igaram, who isnt nearly as public facing of a figure.

Saint Black · Apr 15, 2021

DKI said:

Yeah it is quite mess up that Sugar, even I wonder how she is going to find out due to being lock up. And 3 disagreements replies I see about that Monet won't join the straw hats is

reddit user said: Monet was kind of a child abuser. I mean she psychologically conditioned children into believing they’re happy, while assisting in getting them addicted to a drug that severely shortens their lifespan. She treated them as experiments and not as actual living breathing beings. I don’t condone Hancock’s kicking of animals, but she was cold and ruthless as a result of her past. Monet disgusts me.

2. She's too loyal to Domflamingo.

3. She had no interactions with the straw hats and tried to kill them.

These hasn't came from me but I think you guys have a more understanding, I'm quite still learning things myself mostly, even though there isn't much about her, mostly backstory of course, for now I want to know more deeply and find every information that I can.

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 15, 2021

DKI said:

I think if that were the case, Oda would have leveraged that during Dressrosa. Nothing about Sugar's story in Dressrosa that I can find implies that there's currently any intention to bring her back later; the only reason I think she will come back is to serve Monet's arc, so I can't see her being brought back to merely reference Monet and not actually reconcile whatever past they shared together.

Saint Black said:

1. I didn't want to say it in the actual theory since I don't like referencing outside manga, but I've always viewed Monet as being similar to Isabella from Promised Neverland. She knows that the children in her care are going to die, and if she does anything to try to prevent their death it will only get her killed (remember: Monet says that if she fails to protect Caesar and his experiments, Joker will kill her), so what's the alternative? Give them good lives in the meantime. I think it's much more morally grey than this person was giving it credit for, and besides, Caesar was the one drugging the children. Yes, Monet handed them the candy, but it definitely wasn't her idea and we don't know her exact circumstances. All we know is that she was under some level of duress from Doflamingo to go along with Caesar, and like I said in the theory, it's entirely possible that she didn't know exactly how bad the drug was until much later. Either way, Oda only showed us the smallest snippet of the situation, just like he does with every other character, such as...

1.5. Hancock kicking animals "as a result of her past." When she was first presented she was supposed to seem like she was irredeemably terrible because all we knew about her was that she would kick animals and was willing to kill her own people to uphold seemingly unjust laws. Once we learned the truth, we were able to understand and sympathize with her because we had context for her actions. That's really all we needed then, and it's all we'd need for Monet.

2. So was Bellamy. Loyalties can be broken under the right circumstances.

3. Who hasn't tried to kill the Straw Hats? Hancock tried to kill Luffy, but now she's literally in love with him. Pudding tried to kill Sanji and by extension the rest of the crew, but she's pretty definitively an ally now, she's just stuck in Big Mom's crew. Bellamy humiliated Luffy publicly with the intention of killing him if they ever crossed paths again, only to later gain respect for Luffy and eventually view him as a friend. People change, especially in One Piece. I swear, do these people even read the series?

Post automatically merged: Apr 15, 2021

ArturCantSpeakJapanese said:

I like that take, and it certainly helps me feel better about it, but I was more referring to Luffy's speech to Vivi about the realities of war. All of the casualties and loss for Alabasta, and by extension Vivi, were nameless, faceless mob characters who we don't even actually hear about. Pell's sacrifice, to me, represented all of that loss in a tangible and relatable way while driving home the ideas that Luffy presented earlier. I personally don't mind either way, but many people are sour on the idea of Pell surviving after his death had such a poignant effect on Vivi. I can't remember at the moment which video he talks about it in, but Mr. Morj has definitely discussed this topic much more eloquently than I can.

ArturCantSpeakJapanese said:

May I ask what scene you're referring to?

Cus if it's this one in 211, he looks pretty unconscious to me.

I definitely agree that him rejecting Miss Goldenweek's offer to break him out of prison is a sign of growth and change on his part, but I don't think this scene in particular demonstrates any major implications about his character.

davidobandolim · Apr 15, 2021

Luffy had no problem allying himself with Buggy, Bon Clay, Mr.3, , Smoker, Crocodile, Ceasar, Franky, Robin, Germa, Pudding and X-Drake.

Monet's fight against the strawhats was very strange, she didn't actually harm any of them.

I imagine it would be easy for Luffy and her to become friends.

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 15, 2021

davidobandolim said:

Even considering that Monet stabbed Robin through the shoulder (which somehow was "just a scratch"), it's definitely easy to see Luffy forgiving basically everything Monet did when you consider that he's...well, Luffy.

Hancock turned Marguerite to stone then ordered her smashed, Bellamy stole Cricket's gold and mocked his dreams and broke the Going Merry, Pudding tricked Luffy and Sanji with the intention of getting the whole crew killed, etc.

Sorry to use the same examples as I did previously, but man they really hammer home exactly what we're talking about.

Luffy is really good at understanding that people have their own circumstances and the fluid nature of oppositional relationships. He has a solid "that was then, this is now" mentality, so while he can hold a grudge ("Crocodile is Vivi's enemy"), he also is able to put aside differences for the sake of cooperation.

I don't think he could forgive Akainu or Blackbeard for their roles in Ace's death, but he's forgiven people for attempted murder plenty of times, likely because he understands that those actions were situational.

Saint Black · Apr 15, 2021

davidobandolim said:

If Hopefully when the big show down with Kaido comes and after, we'll get to see that.

Post automatically merged: Apr 15, 2021

1. I didn't want to say it in the actual theory since I don't like referencing outside manga, but I've always viewed Monet as being similar to Isabella from Promised Neverland. She knows that the children in her care are going to die, and if she does anything to try to prevent their death it will only get her killed (remember: Monet says that if she fails to protect Caesar and his experiments, Joker will kill her), so what's the alternative? Give them good lives in the meantime. I think it's much more morally grey than this person was giving it credit for, and besides, Caesar was the one drugging the children. Yes, Monet handed them the candy, but it definitely wasn't her idea and we don't know her exact circumstances. All we know is that she was under some level of duress from Doflamingo to go along with Caesar, and like I said in the theory, it's entirely possible that she didn't know exactly how bad the drug was until much later. Either way, Oda only showed us the smallest snippet of the situation, just like he does with every other character, such as...

I agree. the OP wiki say otherwise.....

Kidnapped Children
Monet appeared to be very kind to the children kidnapped and used for experiments. Her rewarding of the children and her friendly attitude makes some of the children view her as a mother. Mocha is the one exception to this, as she realized that they are all being deceived and eventually turns against Monet. In reality, Monet was working with Caesar and saw the children as nothing more than mere test subjects for experiments.[12]

Which I believe the Fandoms/wiki aren't exact 100% information, because sometimes it can be wrong with context and origin and I think they aren't reliable source because they are made by someone, the accuracy is good but what's to tell if it's real or not.

DKI · Apr 15, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

1. I like a lot this analogy of Monet with Promised Neverland Isabella, both are also called "mom" from the children.

I would like to talk a moment about the comparison of Monet with Robin.
Pre mugiwara Robin was an assassin and a backstabber, she was a subordinate of countless criminals in her past, which eventually she betrayed or killed every single time. We can't even know how many times she has been guilty of a murder, a robbery or of any other crime. But we saw when, with an evil smile, Robin stares at Vivi after the princess was overpowered by Crocodile, or when she mercilessly and again with a smile on her face knocks out vivi and break the spine of Pell, or when she opens her way throught the blood of the marines and tashigi. And even when there was a hope for luffy and Vivi to make crocodile and his plan fail, Robin kept following him, even knowing that she was on the wrong side. In the end Robin turned out to not be truly evil, then why she was still following crocodile orders until the point where he was the one to turn her his back?
1 Because this was her reality, since she was a child she was used to live and follow the orders of criminals, survival of the fittest was her daily bread, there was no space for justice in Robin world.
2 Because she knew Crocodile was too strong for her, she could not turn against him because she was scared for her life. Doesn't matter how many innocents would have fell victims to Crocodile, her life was more important. Proof of this is that she doesn't esitate to attack him when he said that he was gonna kill her because she knew too much.
This is similiar for Monet, yet different.
Let's start with saying that differently from Robin, for which her life counted more than all the other human souls on the planet, Monet was loyal to someone, and for that someone she was ready to give her life, that someone of course is nothing else than her lord and savior, Doflamingo. At Monet's eyes, what Doflamingo orders is the right thing to do, no matter what. This is the greatest power of Doflamingo, his persuasion. Monet felt so in debt to Doflamingo that she was ready to give up everthing for him, just as Vergo, just as all the other Doflamingo family members. Yet, people saying: "She's too loyal to Domflamingo", which is a phrase i've seen as plentiful times, forget an essential point: Doflamingo hides his true identity, except his 4 officers, nobody knows what truly Doflamingo's nature is. Monet was ready to give up her life to a person she didn't really know.
Monet's life was an entire lie.

To make it clear, in my opinion: both Robin and Monet grew up in an environment that forced them to be as they were. But Robin had more awareness of the world that was around her and could distinguish between good and bad, justice and injustice, she just had no hope in the justice and life made her learn to always follow the stronger. All Monet knowledge was what Doflamingo told her, and the book she studied, she could distinguish good and bad, but she couldn't when things concerned Doflamingo, who was the absolute good to her.

About point 1 of Tokiro i would like to add: is never stated that Monet was aware of the consequences that the candies she was giving the children would have had. And I believe that she had no idea at all, she is not a medic neither a scientist, how could she know the candies she was giving them were instead drugs?
I believe Monet obtained the love of the children just with being herself, and when she fought, she did it for the kids, she even says "you ain't gonna kidnap my children" because at her eyes, mugiwaras were a bunch of dangerous thiefs, and she was truly concerned for the children. The situation in Punk Hazard, really reminded me a nest under attack, with the mom bird (Monet) doing all that she can to protect his little ones.

Anyway, even if she knew, nothing changes too much, it still is not a reason to preclude her from being a nakama.
As i said, Robin was introduced as a was way a more evil and negative character.
Zoro killed for moneys.
And what about Komurasaki? Nobody talks about her in a bad way, many even hope her to have a central role in Wano arc and cut the head of the tyrant Orochi. Yet, Komurasaki ruined the lifes of many people charming them with her body only to obtain all their possessions. And when her own guards sacrifice themself for her safeness, she doesn't give a damn.

ArturCantSpeakJapanese · Apr 15, 2021

Tokiro Oumaga said:

I think if that were the case, Oda would have leveraged that during Dressrosa. Nothing about Sugar's story in Dressrosa that I can find implies that there's currently any intention to bring her back later; the only reason I think she will come back is to serve Monet's arc, so I can't see her being brought back to merely reference Monet and not actually reconcile whatever past they shared together.

1. I didn't want to say it in the actual theory since I don't like referencing outside manga, but I've always viewed Monet as being similar to Isabella from Promised Neverland. She knows that the children in her care are going to die, and if she does anything to try to prevent their death it will only get her killed (remember: Monet says that if she fails to protect Caesar and his experiments, Joker will kill her), so what's the alternative? Give them good lives in the meantime. I think it's much more morally grey than this person was giving it credit for, and besides, Caesar was the one drugging the children. Yes, Monet handed them the candy, but it definitely wasn't her idea and we don't know her exact circumstances. All we know is that she was under some level of duress from Doflamingo to go along with Caesar, and like I said in the theory, it's entirely possible that she didn't know exactly how bad the drug was until much later. Either way, Oda only showed us the smallest snippet of the situation, just like he does with every other character, such as...

1.5. Hancock kicking animals "as a result of her past." When she was first presented she was supposed to seem like she was irredeemably terrible because all we knew about her was that she would kick animals and was willing to kill her own people to uphold seemingly unjust laws. Once we learned the truth, we were able to understand and sympathize with her because we had context for her actions. That's really all we needed then, and it's all we'd need for Monet.

2. So was Bellamy. Loyalties can be broken under the right circumstances.

3. Who hasn't tried to kill the Straw Hats? Hancock tried to kill Luffy, but now she's literally in love with him. Pudding tried to kill Sanji and by extension the rest of the crew, but she's pretty definitively an ally now, she's just stuck in Big Mom's crew. Bellamy humiliated Luffy publicly with the intention of killing him if they ever crossed paths again, only to later gain respect for Luffy and eventually view him as a friend. People change, especially in One Piece. I swear, do these people even read the series?

Post automatically merged: Apr 15, 2021

I like that take, and it certainly helps me feel better about it, but I was more referring to Luffy's speech to Vivi about the realities of war. All of the casualties and loss for Alabasta, and by extension Vivi, were nameless, faceless mob characters who we don't even actually hear about. Pell's sacrifice, to me, represented all of that loss in a tangible and relatable way while driving home the ideas that Luffy presented earlier. I personally don't mind either way, but many people are sour on the idea of Pell surviving after his death had such a poignant effect on Vivi. I can't remember at the moment which video he talks about it in, but Mr. Morj has definitely discussed this topic much more eloquently than I can.

May I ask what scene you're referring to?

Cus if it's this one in 211, he looks pretty unconscious to me.

I definitely agree that him rejecting Miss Goldenweek's offer to break him out of prison is a sign of growth and change on his part, but I don't think this scene in particular demonstrates any major implications about his character.

Yeah I remembered his eyes being open with pupils in them, my bad. Still... You don't think this scene has any implications on his character?

Luffy beats his fucking ass after this. Crocodile's philosophy is laid out bare here, and then dismantled. He learns a lot, I'd say, even before the fight ends. Look at his expression change as he understands the depth of Luffy's dedication.

And as he says "you could have thrown away one or two friends and avoided all this" if pell was busy actually dying and throwing away his life to avoid this, it would have undermined it in my eyes. Him surviving is a final capstone that yes, vivi's ideology won, and there was no compromise. It's not always a death sentence to risk it all.

Tokiro Oumaga · Apr 16, 2021

ArturCantSpeakJapanese said:

That scene most definitely conveys Crocodile's character, and the meaning behind Pell's death or survival can most definitely be tied to the conversations being had in this scene. The only points I wanted to make were:

A) Crocodile did not willingly allow himself to be arrested after being defeated by Luffy from what I could find; and

B) many people interpret Pell's survival as running counter to the point of this scene: Pell traded his life to protect people, just like Luffy is doing, rather than being a pawn thrown away for someone else's goals. It isn't a heroic sacrifice if you get up and walk away after it, and the entire speech that Luffy made to Vivi earlier about not shouldering the burden on her own is somewhat watered down by the fact that ultimately Vivi got exactly what she wanted: a victory with no casualties.

I will reiterate, I prefer the way things turned out. I like when characters survive because much like Oda, I enjoy the possibility of them coming back into the story and having more to contribute. It's the entire premise of this theory.

But, there is an argument to be made for narrative themes being undermined by narrative choices. The death of allied characters shows what's at stake, but having everyone miraculously survive gives many readers the impression that nothing is ever at stake. How many times have you seen a character in danger and thought "well, Oda doesn't kill anyone, so it's fine"?

I wasn't worried at all when Pedro pulled out the dynamite because "Oda doesn't kill anyone." It just looked like Pell all over again. It wasn't until Perospero stood back up, missing an arm and Pedro nowhere to be seen that it sunk in: Oda may actually have killed Pedro off.

Then Pound sacrificed himself so that Chiffon could get away from Oven. The visuals gave a strong impression that he had died, and I was perfectly willing to believe that Oda had gone through with it because the arc was nearing its conclusion and Pedro was still nowhere to be seen.

Fast forward to Wano with Tonoyasu up on a cross for his public execution. Hot off the heels of Pedro and Pound, I was finally unsure if Oda was willing to kill off a character because it seemed like he'd finally changed his ways. If the Pound reveal had happened earlier, I probably would have gone back to expecting him to survive rather than feeling the tension of wondering what would happen.

Again, it's a matter of personal preference whether Pell or Pedro or Pound or even Tonoyasu's deaths need to be permanent for the sake of "good" storytelling because either way can potentially serve a different purpose and fill different needs for different readers. Regardless of what your personal preference or mine is, though, the original point I was trying to make still stands: Monet's death is absolutely 100% pointless.

Being knocked out would suffice for stopping the self-destruct sequence, no one is visibly affected or changed by Monet's death, no one even seems to know about it (there's a scene where Doflamingo talks about Monet which has been translated as "you killed Monet," but that's a mistranslation and it's more like "you attacked Monet"). There are no lasting implications or repercussions to Monet's death, but her survival has the potential to shape the entire rest of the story