L, Near and Justice
I’d been meaning to write something along these lines for a while now, but inspiration hit me when I came across a really quite lovely edit (http://bartlet.tumblr.com/post/125881593760/near-is-the-darker-colder-angrier-version-of-l) which implied that Near is “the darker, colder, angrier” version of L and that while the latter represents justice, Near represents vengeance. Now, while I sympathise with the general sentiment of this and also appreciate the skill of the edit, I cannot help but disagree with some of it, mainly the justice/vengeance claim. I will try to sustain my opinions with logical arguments, so hopefully it will be worth something. Also note that this is not to take away from either character, as they are both very dear to me and I simply have a slightly different interpretation of them.
Firstly, to the claim that Near is the darker, colder and angrier version of L I would say that both L and Near are equally dark in different ways and both cold and not cold in different ways (arguably, in fact, Near is the more sensitive of the two, but that is a topic for a different time). I would agree that Near is the angrier of the two, however, and I will get to that later.
Now to the heart of the argument. While it’s true that L, the detective, represents justice as a foil to Kira, L Lawliet, the person, is really far from that ideal. The author even says, in How To Read, that L is “slightly evil”. In the Death Note one-shot special, Near remembers a conversation with L in which the detective admitted that:
It's not a sense of justice. Figuring out difficult cases is my hobby. If you measured good and evil deeds by current laws, I would be responsible for many crimes. The same way you all like to solve mysteries and riddles, or clear video games more quickly. For me too, it's simply prolonging something I enjoy doing. That's why I only take on cases that pique my interest. It's not justice at all. And if it means being able to clear a case, I don't play fair, I'm a dishonest, cheating human being who hates losing.
I think it’s fair to say then, that while L almost certainly has his own negative opinion about Kira’s actions and believes them to be wrong, it is not this that drives him. Therefore, I don’t think it’s quite right to say that L Lawliet represents justice. Rather, I think L, the Greatest Detective in the World, the title that Light temporarily holds and that Near eventually inherits, is the most plausible representation of justice in the Death Note universe. L Lawliet the human being if anything represents the best foil to Light Yagami, but that is a topic for another time.
So then, what about Near? It is clear to me that Near has his own fully formed ideas about morality and justice, and in a certain sense is more similar to Light than L in this respect. Both he and Light come up with their own (very different) opinions independently, and then, observing the society that surrounds them, proceed to pass some form of judgement on it. L, on the other hand, very probably has his own independent opinions, but does not actively judge.
An example of this side of Near is when he is confronted with the mob of Kira worshippers in chapter 80. Instead of immediately coming up with an efficient plan of action as L might do, Near instead attempts to analyse the worshippers. He expresses deep contempt for them, considering them to be either blind followers or thugs who would take any excuse to fight, and uses these conclusions to formulate an escape plan. His strategy of distracting the mob by raining money down on them is very ironic and I would say typical of Near. It seems that Near is deliberately trying to prove a point, maybe even to the second L himself (whom he suspects of being Kira), who is watching the scene unfold.
Also, Near is not content to simply defeat Kira, but he also wants to rub his defeat in his face and explain to Kira exactly why his ideals were wrong in principle. His speech in chapter 105, with which he counter’s Light’s assertions of being righteous, demonstrates his sense of justice:
Nobody can tell what is right and what is wrong, what is righteous and what is evil. Even if there was a god, and I had His teachings before me, I would think it through, and decide if that was right or wrong myself. I’m no different from you; I believe in what I think is right and believe that to be righteous. You are no god, and I feel that the whole idea of you setting the path for all the people to follow is neither peaceful nor righteous. And anybody who claims to be God and kills people from left to right is definitely evil by my standards.
At the Yellow Box Warehouse, Near not only effectively destroys Kira by presenting solid evidence against him, but also ideologically destroys Kira and all that he stands for.
The only time I would say vengeance becomes one of Near’s motivations for defeating Kira rather than contempt for him on ideological grounds is after Mello’s death. I have always maintained that Near held Mello in great regard and was in fact quite fond of him. I therefore concede that by the Yellow Box confrontation, Near also wishes to avenge Mello and vindicate his right to stand with Near as L’s successor. However, the fact remains that Near as a whole does not represent vengeance any more than L represents justice.
In conclusion, it seems clear to me that Near is deeply principled (though I certainly wouldn’t say that his principles in any way conform to what our society considers to be moral) and has his own clearly defined “philosophy of life”, so to speak. It is this rather than vengeance that (for the most part, as I have said) drives him. In fact, Near speaks rather of surpassing L with Mello’s help than avenging him. (This is not to say that Near does not respect L, in fact we have every reason to believe that he does respect L and his methods).
As I have already alluded to, I will not claim that it is in fact Near who represents justice and not L. One could say, however, that Near if anything represents an ideological foil to Light, while L represents a human, personal foil to him. Both L and Near only represent justice when they don the mantel of L, the Great Detective.
One last consideration to finish: does anyone actually represent vengeance in the story? Surely, someone in the second arc has to, especially after L’s death. The most obvious option for me would be Mello, after all, his is the quote:
I don’t underestimate revenge as a motive. (Chapter 64)
He also seems the most concerned and genuinely upset about L’s death. It may also be possible to interpret him as not only avenging L, but also in a sense avenging himself and reclaiming what he believes Near (and indirectly L’s untimely death) have taken from him: a chance at succeeding L. This consideration, however, deserves a post of its own, and for now feel free to take it or leave it.