Questions & Mysteries Why did Oda draw Monet's heart intact?

#1
It's no secret that I, the guy with young Monet as his icon, am a huge proponent of the theory that Monet is alive. While I've written an entire book on the subject, only a small part of said book covers how she survived. Seeing as the whole theory ultimately hinges on whether or not she's alive, there's really only one piece of evidence that would need to be refuted to suggest that she is in fact dead: her heart being intact when Franky finds Caesar passed out on the dock.



Despite Caesar clearly making contact with the piece of shrapnel and causing Monet's heart to bleed, in turn causing her to cough up blood and collapse, the shrapnel is also clearly depicted a little ways away from the heart and embedded in the dock. To me, and to many others, this suggests that Caesar's hand slipped as he fell unconscious, so while he was able to deal a hard enough blow to knock Monet out (like he did to Law earlier in the arc), he was not in fact able to pierce the heart and thus did not land a fatal blow.

No one I've ever spoken to has given me a satisfactory alternative explanation. The closest I've heard is that she still bled out and died from the wound she did receive, but if Oda was just going to kill her anyway, why didn't he just draw the shrapnel in the heart like we would expect it to be?

If Oda's intention is for her to be dead, why do you believe he drew the heart and shrapnel separately?

For the sake of concision, I'm going to be adding my rebuttals for opposing viewpoints to this post even if I've already addressed them directly in the thread. My hope is that we can, as a group, eliminate the possibilities and either arrive at a consensus that we can all be satisfied with or come to an understanding as to why we are on opposing sides of the issue in the first place.

@Yasheen and @Chrono both suggested that Oda wanted to avoid depicting Monet being brutalized, the former suggesting it's because she was a minor character and the latter because she is a woman. In an act of self-censorship, Oda drew the shrapnel separately from the heart because that image would be uncomfortable either for him or the audience, but the stab either still killed her or she died later of other causes.

I definitely see the logic here, as it makes it clear that the heart's condition was an artistic choice on Oda's part and lines up with other similar choices he's made in the past. However, I feel that there are several reasons this is not likely to be the case.

1. The stab itself was much more brutal

I have a difficult time imagining something more brutal in the context of One Piece than a close-up on a disembodied heart being stabbed and blood spurting from it. This is the closest that I think Oda ever has or will get to depicting full-on gore, so I'm not too sure that showing that same heart with the shrapnel still embedded in it from a distance would be too much worse.

2. Oda has shown similarly brutal scenes in the past.

As @Flagandhat pointed out, Caesar stabbing Monet's heart is reminiscent of Crocodile stabbing Robin in Alabasta.



Based on the framing of the panel, I can see how one might say that Oda doesn't like to depict women being brutalized, but the image itself is still quite explicit. It may be subjective, but I would say that what happened to Monet is far more brutal for the reasons I listed earlier.

One might also suggest that this is because Robin is a more important character than Monet, but bear in mind that at this point in the story, Robin was approximately as important as Monet was in Punk Hazard: the arc villain's henchwoman. We had no idea that she was going to be a main character, much less a recurring character past this moment. If we are going to argue that Oda doesn't brutalize minor characters, then we would have to conclude that Monet is intended to become a major character. That's not what we're talking about right now, but it's interesting to note.

3. Oda's artistic skill

As I pointed out before, when Oda drew Robin being stabbed he avoided depicting the wound itself, only showing that Crocodile's hook had blood on it. He also used a screentone to shadow the panel, helping to hide Robin's blood among the shading on the hook. Oda clearly knows how to draw around unsavory subject matter, so we can assume if he didn't want to show us the shrapnel sticking out of the heart, he could have easily found a way not to.

Just off the top of my head, he could have positioned the panel so that the heart was completely off-screen, only the edge of the heart was on-screen, or the heart was behind Caesar's unconscious body. There may be other ways to work around it, but the point remains that he depicted the heart and showed us that the shrapnel had been removed at some point without explanation.

Because we know that Oda is a skilled artist, we can assume that this was a deliberate choice and that he has an intended sequence of events for what happened after the initial stab. Though we can only guess at Oda's true intentions, we can conclude definitively that Caesar did not simply drop the shrapnel. Because it is clearly embedded into the dock, we can safely say this happened while Caesar was swinging it down to stab.

I personally can only see two ways this happened: either Caesar's hand slipped as I said earlier, or he was stabbing repeatedly and wildly.

As things stand, stabbing wildly is the only way I can possibly think to justify Monet still receiving a fatal wound rather than a glancing blow, but because Oda only showed one stab in the first place, I can't imagine why he would have Caesar performing more stabs only to have him slip. The only thing this accomplishes is misleading the audience into thinking that there's a way that Monet could have survived the stab. If there were other strong implications that Monet is alive, this could be taken as a red herring, but because there's no clear alternative for it to be distracting us from, it can only be either that Oda intended the stab itself to be a misdirect or that he made a mistake in how he depicted the stabbing. As we've established, Oda is detail-oriented and skilled at panel framing, so in my opinion, the latter cannot possibly be the case. If it were, that would be an extremely disillusioning revelation for Oda's storytelling, so unless you want to claim that One Piece is poorly written or drawn, I think we can rule this out as a possibility entirely.

Yasheen also suggested that Monet was caught in an explosion after she collapsed in C Block, which she would have no way of surviving. While addressing this, I'm going to also address the general idea that anything other than the stab wound killed Monet, making the stabbing irrelevant.

The first big problem with this argument is that there was no explosion for her to be caught in, at least not as far as I could find. I'd love to provide visual proof, but that would require posting the entirety of Punk Hazard past Monet's supposed death and asking you all to comb through it. The closest I can provide is one of our last views of Punk Hazard: Brownbeard and his remaining crewmates reentering the lab to find his crewmates and the G-5 marines who were caught in the Shinokuni gas.



If there were an explosion that the unconscious Monet would have been unavoidably caught in, the petrified marines and pirates would certainly have been caught as well, killing them and giving Brownbeard no reason to go back to look for them.

I think that there are two points of confusion here that Yasheen may have been referring to, though they have not confirmed it for me at the time of this writing.

First, there was in fact an explosion during the Punk Hazard arc...moments before Monet was stabbed.



After defeating Vergo in the SAD production room, Law set the entirety of D Block to explode, presumably intending to kill Vergo. While explosions have been shown to be plenty survivable and Vergo may well be alive from this explosion, that is not the topic of discussion in this thread. The one person we can be absolutely survived this explosion is Monet, as she is clearly alive and commenting on the explosion in C Block.

Alternatively, they could be referring to a conversation in chapter 1007 where CP0 discusses an explosion on Punk Hazard.



Because of the vagueness of the dialogue, lots of people seem to have taken the conversation to mean that after the events of the Punk Hazard arc, an explosion occurred that did indeed wipe out Punk Hazard, but Caesar's lab somehow survived. However, based on the fact that G-5 made the report, we can assume that this is referring to the events that we witnessed firsthand ourselves during said arc.

Remember, the backstory for Punk Hazard was that it was a secret island used for testing weapons on pirates captured by the Marines run by Vegapunk. When Caesar tried to develop weapons of mass destruction that would incur civilian casualties, Vegapunk removed him from the research team, prompting Caesar to trigger an explosion that destroyed two of Punk Hazard's three labs and spread a highly toxic and paralytic gas through the island, making it uninhabitable.



The one lab that was still functioning under Caesar's command was discovered by Smoker and G-5, who then reported Caesar's operations to the World Government. The reason Caesar was able to continue his operations for so long was because the World Government thought all of Punk Hazard had been destroyed, which in turn is why Aokiji and Akainu had their battle there, thinking no one could possibly be caught in the crossfire.

Because the World Government didn't know that Punk Hazard still had an operational lab, CP0 didn't know, leading to the long-haired agent believing that all of Punk Hazard had been destroyed. After the events of the Punk Hazard arc, G-5 made their report which made its way to the hat-wearing agent, who revealed to the other two that Lab 3 was still operational and may have housed the cloned Fish-Fish Fruit, Model: Seiryu.

In short: there is no reason to assume that the CP0 conversation is referring to some explosion we've never heard of when there's a much more viable established explosion that they are likely talking about.

To cover all of my bases, Yasheen could also have been referring to the spread of Shinokuni, though I'm not sure why they would have referred to that as an explosion. Though we don't know what happened after the events of the arc just yet, we were explicitly shown that C Block, where Monet was, was sealed off from Shinokuni.



It's possible that Shinokuni leaked in later, but if that happened, there's a good chance that whatever allowed it to leak in also allowed Brownbeard and his crew to also enter C Block and find Monet. This might even be the explanation for how she got out of Punk Hazard without succumbing to Shinokuni: Brownbeard may have brought her to Smoker and had her treated and subsequently arrested. It's hard to say, and also again not the discussion at hand.

@Rootbeer suggested that because any blood came out of the heart at all, it must be damaged internally and Monet would die regardless of where the shrapnel ended up. Again though, One Piece has a well-established track record for even the most fatal injuries being survivable. I won't go into every single example as that would take far too long, but just to go through some of the most salient instances, we have: Robin suffering a similar wound as stated earlier; Law similarly surviving having his heart punched by Caesar which should also have caused internal damage since it results in him fainting and bleeding...



...Dalton receiving three ballista-sized arrows to the torso, likely piercing at least his lungs and possibly other major organs...



...and the single most ridiculous injury that anyone in One Piece has survived - Wapol having his head cut off only to be reattached with tin plates.



Wounds of similar and significantly greater fatality have been shown to be survivable within the context of One Piece's world with the barest of explanations if any at all. Why should we worry about a little bit of blood when so many other characters have simply shrugged off so much worse?

Ultimately, though, this argument itself doesn't carry much weight for one simple reason: Oda didn't need a secondary method for killing her. He already showed her heart being stabbed. If he wanted her dead, why wouldn't he just commit to the method that he showed us? Why would he leave a hint that she might be alive if he was just going to kill her with a different method anyway? It doesn't make any sense to kill her with an unknown and roundabout method after writing a workaround to the straightforward method he made an explicit show of. Again, this whole argument hinges on the assumption that Oda's writing is sloppy, this time in the sense that it's wildly overly complicated, which I don't think I need to spend any time convincing anyone isn't the case.

Another argument presented by Rootbeer was that Oda placed the shrapnel where he did so as to mess with the readers, sending them on a wild goose chase presumably for a laugh at the expense of overly serious fans.

I will not justify this argument with a lengthy response or by wasting my time hunting for proof that Oda does not go out of his way to make fun of his audience. It is simply a copout answer meant to divorce oneself from the responsibility of engaging with the material and other readers critically or respectfully. I think that Oda has more than earned our trust that he would not place details meant simply to give us the runaround. He isn't above putting easter eggs in the background as jokes, such as Pandaman who will appear in absurd places, but these are meant to engage the audience and be fun and rewarding for the type of reader who has the same eye for detail as Oda himself. To dismiss a detail that has strong implications for the plot as a cruel practical joke is, quite simply, disrespectful, and I will entertain this or similar notions no further.

@Raughtale suggested that Oda may have depicted the shrapnel outside of the heart in part as a way to convey more of Caesar's character: being a doctor, he would reasonably know that a stab wound would be more fatal if the weapon were removed, and being an all-around terrible person he would be the type to gloat such as by stabbing the weapon into the ground after the fact as a show of victory.

Because removing the shrapnel would of course create confusion as it would imply that Monet could perhaps still be alive (which it did, hence this entire discussion), I asked Raughtale how they would reconcile Oda knowingly making this choice, and their answer was simply so that Oda could decide later what that depiction meant.

If Oda has time to tell a story wherein Monet would be able to feasibly come back and contribute, then having a visual indicator that would prove he had planned it from the beginning would be extremely helpful in making that scenario believable to the audience.

If Oda finds he doesn't have the time or is otherwise unable to fit that plot point into the story, then he can fall back on Monet being dead as presented at face value and may have an alternate sequence of events laid out for what really happened if someone asks him to explain his reasoning.

Of all of the suggestions we've received so far, it's the most sound, the most well-rounded, and the most respectful. It gives an in-text, character-based explanation of the sequence of events, illustrates a clear understanding of the writing process, and acknowledges the other side's stance without dismissing or belittling it. I may not agree with it, but it's a stance that I can respect.

Still, if I'm not going to agree with it, I feel it's only right that I explain my position in full. Quite simply, I think it's a matter of Occam's Razor: it takes fewer assumptions on our part as readers to conclude that Monet's heart is intact rather than irreparably damaged.

The facts are these:

  1. Caesar swung the shrapnel in a downward motion
  2. Caesar is depicted doing so only once
  3. The tip of the shrapnel made contact with the heart, as evidenced by the blood and the compression of the heart
  4. Hearts removed by the Op-Op Fruit are soft and squishy, as evidenced by the compression in this scene and by how we see them deform when squeezed in other arcs (ex: Doflamingo squeezing a Marine's heart in 723 or Perospero squeezing Caesar's in 834)
  5. Because of said compression, in combination with the camera angle, we cannot actually see the tip of the shrapnel entering the heart, only that it is in fact touching it
  6. Any significant physical damage to a heart removed by the Op-Op Fruit will result in fainting and bleeding, even if the wound itself is not fatal
  7. Congruent with the previous fact, Monet coughed up blood and collapsed
  8. Caesar fainted soon after attempting to stab the heart
  9. The shrapnel is embedded in the dock, not in the heart
To conclude that the heart was fatally stabbed, we must make the following assumptions of the sequence of off-screen events:
  1. The shrapnel went sufficiently deep into the heart to incur a fatal injury (rather than only scratching the surface, which is all we know for sure)
  2. Caesar was conscious enough to remove the shrapnel from the heart for whatever reason (Caesar's medical knowledge is a fact, so we won't count "to make it bleed out more effectively" as a separate assumption; however, because we do not see him remove the shrapnel, the assumption remains)
  3. Caesar swings the shrapnel down a second time, whether in an attempt to stab the heart again or to make a show of stabbing the ground (we know either would match his personality, so that won't be a separate assumption, but we do only see him stab once)
To conclude that the heart escaped fatal injury, we must likewise make the following assumption:
  1. Because of the heart's softness (which we know is a fact because of the distortion and how hearts are depicted being squeezed at various points), the shrapnel either slipped off of the heart or the heart slipped out from under the shrapnel. Because of the shrapnel's trajectory, we know for a fact that if this happened it would make logical sense for it to end up stabbed into the dock, again lining up with the facts as we know them. Because Caesar fainted (a fact), he would then be unable to make a second attempt; we don't need to assume he didn't make a second attempt because a second attempt would itself be an assumption. Likewise, we don't need to assume the shrapnel didn't go beyond the tip when stabbing the heart because it lines up with what we were definitively shown. We don't need to assume negatives because doing so would only be reiterating the facts. The burden of proof is to demonstrate what did happen that we didn't see, as the baseline assumption is that what we were shown is accurate.
It only takes one assumption to match the facts with the possibility of Monet being alive, but three to match them with the possibility of Monet being dead. None of the facts explicitly contradict the possibility of her being dead, but the added steps in logic make this scenario less likely to be the case.

Still, as Raughtale has given me the benefit of the doubt that Oda may well choose this shorter path, it is only fair that I acknowledge the longer path is also a valid option for Oda to employ if he needs to.

This is the type of response I wanted to receive when writing this thread. Raughtale met me in the middle, acknowledged my side, but gave a clear and concise explanation of why they disagree with me. I, of course, still disagree with them for my own reasons, but I can't in any good conscience say that Raughtale is definitively wrong. Whichever explanation Oda goes with will inherently be retroactive since it wasn't explained upfront, and coming to a consensus that Oda has considered both possibilities and will ultimately make his choice based on the needs of the story is honestly the best outcome I could have hoped for. Regardless of which route Oda chooses, I hope that both sides of this discussion will be able to keep this middle ground in mind and treat each other with respect when the time comes that we receive the definitive answer.

I'll still be keeping an eye out for other arguments, of course, but at the moment this is the one that I find the most compelling.
 
Last edited:
#3
My 2 cents: Like every other secondary character whose death wasn't clearly shown on panel (Pell, Pound, Mr. 2 etc.) there are very good chances she is somewhat still alive yet will we see her again? Maybe or maybe not. I would have liked to see Kuro again somewhere and somewhen but I know that will be very difficult (or the people waiting for Gin to make another example).

The highest chance if she is alive and comes back is in a cover or a cover story if she is lucky, if she is even luckier Oda could link her to the story again somewhat (her and Sugar relevant to something, she goes to free Doffy etc.) then the chances of her somewhat coming back and become a SH are almost non existent. And even in that case OP is becoming more and more Luffy piece with less and less space for all the other SH, now it seems there are also 1 or more new SH joining so.. Anyway this is just my logic applied to the subject I don't want to ruin a dream.
 

Chrono

D Sanji
#6
For the sake of this thread, we're already operating under the assumption that she's dead. The problem is that the heart's condition contradicts that idea. With that in mind, what do you feel explains why her heart isn't skewered?
Like you said Ceaser fainted. But still doesn't change the fact that she was literally stabbed in the heart. True reason tho...is because it's very brutal for Oda to draw that. Especially when it's a beautiful females heart. Very rarely does he like to brutalise them.
 
#8
I feel it’s brutality. Oda isn’t a fan of overly brutal death scenes for minor characters. And seeing her heart literally bisected by an ice pick would be a bit rough.
Like you said Ceaser fainted. But still doesn't change the fact that she was literally stabbed in the heart. True reason tho...is because it's very brutal for Oda to draw that. Especially when it's a beautiful females heart. Very rarely does he like to brutalise them.
So two people have said brutality, and while I appreciate that it's an actual explanation rather than simply dismissing the idea altogether, I really don't think it holds up.

For one, if he were worried about depicting something brutal, he wouldn't have shown the act of Caesar stabbing the heart in the first place. That's much more brutal than seeing a small panel of the already pierced heart. It's hard to tell in the picture I provided, but the panel was fairly subtle.

Secondly, if he did want to avoid depicting the already pierced heart, he could very easily have positioned the panel in a way that obscured it. He could have zoomed in much closer to Caesar and had the heart just peeking in from off-screen, completely off-screen, or obscured by Caesar's body. Instead, he showed that the shrapnel had at some point been removed without any explanation.

If he had shown that Caesar was stabbing repeatedly I would think that's a more valid point, since it would explain definitively why the shrapnel was no longer in the heart and how he passed out while stabbing. Instead, we only know that he stabbed once and that he slipped at some point.

I think it would be much too sloppy of Oda to have that happen without explanation if he didn't plan to address it later, and I for one refuse to use "Oda is a bad writer" as an explanation. If she did in fact die from the stab wound, there must be a textual reason why Oda chose to depict it in a way that confuses the issue.
 
#10
I doubt she survived the explosion.
May I ask what explosion you're referring to?

Rereading the chapters following Monet's supposed death, I couldn't find a single explosion on Punk Hazard at all. In fact, it would be extremely troubling if there were an explosion that could have killed Monet because said explosion would also kill the members of G-5 and the Punk Hazard centaurs/satyrs that Brownbeard and his men specifically went back into Punk Hazard to save from Shinokuni.



If you mean the spread of Shinokuni, it was explicitly shown that she was in the one room in the lab that was sealed off from Shinokuni, so she almost certainly did not fall victim to it.



If you're referring to the explosion that supposedly killed Vergo, that happened before Monet's heart was stabbed, as she comments that the explosion isn't enough to wipe out Punk Hazard.



If you're referring to the conversation that CP0 had in chapter 1007 about Punk Hazard being demolished in an explosion...



...they are referring to the original explosion that Caesar caused when Punk Hazard was being run by Dr. Vegapunk, as this was the event that led the government to believe that Punk Hazard had been destroyed. The big-haired CP0 agent only seems to know the story up to Akainu and Aokiji's battle, whereas the hatted CP0 agent has read G-5's report that revealed that Caesar had returned to Punk Hazard to continue his research in the one lab that survived the explosion he caused.

Is there another explosion that I'm not aware of?

That said, even if there were an explosion for us to question if Monet survived that's still not the question here. The question is why Oda drew her heart intact, and if he were just going to have her die in an explosion anyway, there'd be no reason to make it seem like she died of a stab wound and subsequently bring that into question with that visual. I know you already suggested it was a matter of avoiding a brutal spectacle, but I've also already addressed that point.
 
Last edited:
#11
Hello, I quote you with "..." just to save space. Personally, I totally believe that Monet is alive. The explosion, we never saw what happened to it. Oda always teaches everything. Let's remember that in the vivre card books, Oda says that his final destination is unclear. It is obvious, that he is leaving her survival to the air.

Also, for all those people who still believe that the heart wound was still fatal or lethal. I remind you that we already have a woman who keeps many examples with Monet. Nico Robin.

Nico robin survived a fatal wound that pierced his chest from behind. I think, one thing that defines one piece, is that the characters die in flashbacks or if you are Ace or Whitebeard



If Robin survived this. Monet sure yes
 
#12
My 2 cents: Like every other secondary character whose death wasn't clearly shown on panel (Pell, Pound, Mr. 2 etc.) there are very good chances she is somewhat still alive yet will we see her again? Maybe or maybe not. I would have liked to see Kuro again somewhere and somewhen but I know that will be very difficult (or the people waiting for Gin to make another example).

The highest chance if she is alive and comes back is in a cover or a cover story if she is lucky, if she is even luckier Oda could link her to the story again somewhat (her and Sugar relevant to something, she goes to free Doffy etc.) then the chances of her somewhat coming back and become a SH are almost non existent. And even in that case OP is becoming more and more Luffy piece with less and less space for all the other SH, now it seems there are also 1 or more new SH joining so.. Anyway this is just my logic applied to the subject I don't want to ruin a dream.
This is a perfectly valid stance to take. My theory that Monet is going to be important and join the crew is my interpretation of the subtle background elements that Oda put in her various panels and to justify why it's taken so long for her to return. I have difficulty seeing Monet's return being built up for so long only for her to go back to being a minor character, but because it's Eiichiro Oda, I'm sure he could find a way to make it work.

For the purposes of this thread, though, Monet's relevance after coming back is not in question. The question we want to address right now is how Oda's depiction of Monet's heart can be interpreted in any way other than her survival. Would you happen to have any thoughts on that matter specifically?
 
#15
Blood appertaining and disappearing depending on the importance of focus and Oda forgetting scars are common occurrences so it could be just that, it's not a scene about Monet's heart but Caesar so the focus is on him.
 
#16
Perhaps, but as I said earlier, "when Monet will come back" is not the question we are posing in this thread. Do you have any thoughts on why Oda would draw Monet's heart intact if he didn't intend for her to be alive?
In fact, the intact heart is proof that she is alive though. In fact, it's not the most important thing in my opinion. The SIMPLE fact of giving her a sister, sugar. There is a backstory. History, why Oda made a back ground for Monet if she was going to die? Why give her a sister? Why Oda didn´t reveal the sad past that doffy said? Since when did Oda leave things unsolved?

All this thing, if you think. Is only for a future story... !
 
#17
Blood appertaining and disappearing depending on the importance of focus and Oda forgetting scars are common occurrences so it could be just that, it's not a scene about Monet's heart but Caesar so the focus is on him.
I will concede that Oda is human and makes mistakes. After Jozu lost his arm during the Marineford War, Oda later drew him with both arms, misleading fans to believe that Jozu's diamond Devil Fruit was a Logia. However, Oda realized his mistake and removed the arm in the tankobon version of that same chapter.

The shrapnel is depicted separately from Monet's heart in both the original weekly release and in the tankobon, suggesting that this was a deliberate artistic choice on Oda's part.

Furthermore, Oda frequently includes small details in panels with different focal points as foreshadowing, such as the three sake cups on Ace's grave used to foreshadow that Sabo was alive.



Oda's detail-oriented storytelling is already well documented within the community, so I don't think I need to go into any further detail here to demonstrate how likely it is that small details like that are intentional.

Entertaining the notion that Oda did make a mistake, though, why would he draw the shrapnel separately at all in the first place? If he just forgot to show the heart, I could see that being a mistake. If he forgot the shrapnel but drew the heart in the weekly serialization and then added it in the tankobon, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. However, for some reason he decided to draw the entirety of the shrapnel, which he wouldn't have had any reason to do on the basis that he draws traditionally rather than digitally. If he drew digitally, one could argue it's a layering error, but since he draws traditionally, there's no situation where it would make sense for him to draw the shrapnel whole, he would only need to draw the top sticking out of the heart.

Simply put, there's far too much reason to believe that this was an artistic choice and not nearly enough reason to think it could be a mistake. If Monet never comes back and this issue isn't addressed, maybe it was a mistake and he somehow didn't realize it, but until then we have to assume that if he intends for her to be dead he would have put another clue to suggest as such within the text itself. In terms of textual analysis, we cannot be using assumptions about the circumstances outside of the text as evidence.
 
#18
What makes you think that her heart is intact though? There's just no way the heart is intact, it got stabbed and blood spurted out, its injured internally. Its somewhat intriguing that the weapon isn't lodged in the heart but other than that. Should the readers assume that Kuina is alive because she was shown for one panel training in chapter 589 during the Dawn island flashback? Or that Pedro's interaction with the pumpkin scarecrow homie is a hint that its Pedro's homie and somehow points at him surviving the explosion god knows how?

If Pedro comes back i will then start considering Monet or even Kuina. However for now, its only extra unecessary details that Oda put there to mess up with your brain, to make you believe in the idea that the characters may or may not be alive to keep the thought of their fictional existence living through you, inheriting Oda's will of not killing characters. What is dead may never die
 
#19
I will concede that Oda is human and makes mistakes. After Jozu lost his arm during the Marineford War, Oda later drew him with both arms, misleading fans to believe that Jozu's diamond Devil Fruit was a Logia. However, Oda realized his mistake and removed the arm in the tankobon version of that same chapter.

The shrapnel is depicted separately from Monet's heart in both the original weekly release and in the tankobon, suggesting that this was a deliberate artistic choice on Oda's part.

Furthermore, Oda frequently includes small details in panels with different focal points as foreshadowing, such as the three sake cups on Ace's grave used to foreshadow that Sabo was alive.



Oda's detail-oriented storytelling is already well documented within the community, so I don't think I need to go into any further detail here to demonstrate how likely it is that small details like that are intentional.

Entertaining the notion that Oda did make a mistake, though, why would he draw the shrapnel separately at all in the first place? If he just forgot to show the heart, I could see that being a mistake. If he forgot the shrapnel but drew the heart in the weekly serialization and then added it in the tankobon, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. However, for some reason he decided to draw the entirety of the shrapnel, which he wouldn't have had any reason to do on the basis that he draws traditionally rather than digitally. If he drew digitally, one could argue it's a layering error, but since he draws traditionally, there's no situation where it would make sense for him to draw the shrapnel whole, he would only need to draw the top sticking out of the heart.

Simply put, there's far too much reason to believe that this was an artistic choice and not nearly enough reason to think it could be a mistake. If Monet never comes back and this issue isn't addressed, maybe it was a mistake and he somehow didn't realize it, but until then we have to assume that if he intends for her to be dead he would have put another clue to suggest as such within the text itself. In terms of textual analysis, we cannot be using assumptions about the circumstances outside of the text as evidence.
I understand how this can be evidence for foreshadowing but it can also be as simple as that just being background that lacks extra detail that would otherwise be present if it was a close up shot of it, there's no blood either despite an open heart being capable of pooling and spurting blood, if it's a hint that Monet is alive it can't really be considered thoughtful writing since the never ending instances when damage and detail vary wildly all over the manga would render such efforts meaningless.
 
#20
I just hope that all the people who get so superior when it comes to denying Monet's survival. If monet ever shows up. I hope they are also so superior to acknowledge their mistake.

I understand that we are different and that each one has a candidate. Which is great. But hey, I just tell you that I've been watching One Piece all my life. And the same ode admits that he does not like to kill characters.

Therefore, not only in this forum. If Monet makes it out alive. Which I think is true. Also acknowledge that you were wrong. In the same way if it turns out that I am wrong about Monet's survival. I will say that I was wrong.

But we go. This is one piece. Pound survives a pirate of a yonko crew. Pell to a bomb. Robin is pierced through the chest and Zoro is stabbed and bled to death. And do we see strange about monet? It seems strange to me that instead of giving logical reasons why he could not survive. Just say it's not that she died and nothing else.

Why don't you argue that Oda left a room without gas? Why don't you comment that oda left a heart intact? Why don't you argue why Oda didn't want to show us the past of Monet and Sugar and the rest, yes? Why not argue that monet being a student like nami and robin has more opportunities to fit in?

Why don't you argue that Chopper still not knows why Monet let him go? Why don't you argue that during monet he fits the story of nami and robin more than other candidates? Why don't you comment that episode 698 begins exclusively with the Marines looking for survivors? Why don't you argue that in an analysis vivre card Oda said that Monet's ending is unclear? Why don't you argue the reason why oda didn't want to answer a fan's question about monet in such a suspicious way?

Why don't you argue that Doffy told us that they have a sad past, which turns monet into a nakama like the rest, but Oda still didn't want to explain it? Why don't you explain that Monet is an astrologer and we know from the image of Ohara that they not only studied the foneglyfs but the earth and the moons? Why not argue that in the crow nest in another sbs ode draw an astrological telescope? why don't you argue that oda doesn't kill characters unless you're ace or friend of roger and or in flashbacks? Why don't you argue that robin survived a stabbing that was worse than monet's?

why don't you argue that oda drew monet's attack under the sunny at the end of the arc when he has never done something like that? Why don't you argue that astrology was mega important in the past and is that in one piece eneru it's on a moon? why don't you argue that it is strange that monet has a clearer office than other candidates? why don't you argue that luffy loves snow and ode repeats it to us and monet produces snow? Why don't you argue that she is a villain who can be forgiven by Luffy if she wants, as happened with Robin?

Of course, if I'm wrong, I won't mind saying I was wrong. But the argument of "is dead because yes and I ignore the rest of the details" at least it does not help me to clarify this issue , when oda, does not like to remove characters

I am not saying it in a bad way, I only ask that you answer all the points in a better way, even if it is to deny.
 
Last edited:
Top