In this new episode of Vampire Holmes there is a great deal of talk about the power of role models and of the deep hunger that London has for a person in a position of authority who is unambiguously good. That person is usually the police/Scottland Yard or a 'normal' guy like Hudson, the crusading and incorruptible district attorney, for however much the audience may prefer him to Scottland Yard, Holmes-san is too dark a figure for the role. Indeed, the entire point of their take on Holmes-san is that he is borderline psychotic.
Look at the hidden subtle meaning of this episode. Hudson becomes a hero, and Holmes-san is obliged to reduce him to the sidekick to save Hudson from his inner demon,something that was never done by someone for Holmes-san.
In the very final moment of the episode,or at the beginning according to my theory that the OP shows the origin story of Holmes-san, he scampers off to his future as a pariah, while Hudson explains to us the baffled viewer,that Holmes-san is a to dark off a Vampire to be the "right" hero of London and him solving cases would be an actual crime.
So, in this very canny, complex series (the director of Vampire Holmes seems incapable of a narratively direct movie,something we the viewer should appreciate in the "in-your-face/Urobutcher age"), the duality is clear. Hudson and Holmes-san are both "vampires", but Hudson is “shining” while Holmes-san is dark. Hudson is the hero London needs/not deserves while Holmes-san is the reverse. In short one might say (with just a jot of overreach) that Holmes-san willingly takes on the mantle of everlasting infamy in order to save humankind.
The thesis pursued in my little opinion based "review" is that this strong thematic aspect of Vampire Holmes finds its roots in a short story by the labyrinthine Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges.
The story in question is called “Three Versions of Judas” published in the influential 1944 collection Ficciones.
“Three Versions of Judas” is difficult to encapsulate and is worth reading in full. The story takes the form of an academic summary of the life of an obscure Swedish scholar named Nils Runeberg, who was active in the first years of the twentieth century.Runeberg had been by training a theologian but by the end of his truncated life had moved sharply into heresiology, the study of heresy. Runeberg becomes interested in the contradictory figure of Judas, a traitor whose treachery enabled the salvation of humankind. Runeberg begins to wonder if the scorn bestowed on Judas is truly appropriate treatment for what is, after all, a necessary cog in the cosmological narrative; he ends by assigning Judas the role of Savior.
For Runeberg, given the scale of the salvation that is offered, the sufferings of Christ cannot be sufficient; as the narrator of the story summarizes, “To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous.” If redeemed humanity is to last forever, so too must the infamy of the savior; hence Judas, residing in Dante’s ninth level of Hell.
But Borges is not quite done with his logical twists: if Judas’s infamy is to be complete and everlasting, his heroism must remain a secret. If the deep logic of God’s plan become known, then Judas becomes elevated as a Messiah and the punishment of being scorned on earth ceases to be fulfilled. Runeberg, having stumbled on the secret, cannot succeed in propagating it; his message must remain marginalized. Indeed, he recognizes in that marginalization a proof: “Runeberg intuited from this universal indifference an almost miraculous confirmation.” He has himself become a version of Judas; the second. The third is the narrator who is critiquing Runeberg. From there we can, if we choose, extend the status to Borges and, by extension, anyone who has read and absorbed the point of the story. One could see it as “Five Versions of Judas.”
Like many Borges stories, “Three Versions of Judas” is about scale, about the incomprehensibility of infinity. “Funes the Memorious” posits an infinite memory, “The Garden of Forking Paths” infinite universes, “The Library of Babel” infinite text, and so on. “Three Versions of Judas” posits infinite agony, infinite sacrifice, infinite divinity—limitless asceticism.
Here we can begin to see the outlines of the Vampire Holmes story. Like Holmes-san, Judas, in this reading, willingly takes on the mantle of everlasting infamy(hence the OP is called Everlasting Love) in order to save humankind. Holmes-san becomes the scorned one to permit a savior/hero to remain intact.
In a sense, Vampire Holmes is actually the obverse of “Three Versions of Judas.” That is to say, the plots are very similar but the pull of necessity points in opposite directions. In “Three Versions of Judas,” Jesus exists only to allow Judas, the “real” savior, to come into being. The purpose of the entire exercise is to allow God, in the form of Judas, to take on an infinite sacrifice in order to redeem humanity. In Vampire Holmes, the infamy of Holmes-san is not the purpose of the deception; the heroism of Hudson is.
So if Hudson is the cover messiah and Holmes-san the real messiah, who is Kira—Satan? That seems to work. There is definitely something to pursue here, but teasing it out will have to remain an exercise for US the viewers.
Were the producers of this anime aware of “Three Versions of Judas”? I have no way of knowing.But I think that Vampire Holmes WANTS to make US think about these concepts of morality.Sadly many just see this show as a joke ("huh durh gay vampires") while they are praising Owari no Seraph as the best animu evar...no hope for the anime community is left. |