I definitely can though, an antagonist is a character on its own and Johan only fulfills his role as a symbol and lacks complexity in itself.
Well no you can't because that's not what an antagonist is. An antagonist doesn't need to develop or grow. That's a ridiculous misconception when it comes to character writing.
That's not entirely true, no. While I agree there is hints of his psychological condition, it is not nealy as fleshed out as Shiki's, so you cannot really argue against that.
Because yes, his primary function is to be a symbol and not a "human" character, so he quite literally lacks psychological depth when compared to a character like Shiki whose conflict basically revolves around psyche and self.
And like I said, that's just not true at all. It being subtle does not mean it isn't fleshed out because it absolutely is. And yes, Johan is supposed to be a human character. He isn't supposed to appear human at first, and that changes throughout the story. As for psychological depth, you shot yourself in the foot there by arguing that. The entire story of Monster is centered around figuring out the psychological nuances of Johan and specifically his motivations and goals.
Okay, but that wasn't my point. What I'm telling you is that Shiki has the upper hand in emotional depth and character journey.
Neither of which are important for an antagonist to begin with, so this isn't a good argument anyway.
It quite literally does though, that's what makes her a character with a lot more substance than Johan. Also being more complex, with a lot more areas explored as a character than Johan does, since his primary function is to be a narrative tool to deliver a symbolic meaning, which Shiki also does by herself in her own work. Essentially, he lacks the "universality" that makes a character a lot more meaningful than a character that just delivers one specific message instead of what is "existence" and "humanity" as a whole.
It literally shouldn't. Like, it's genuinely stupid to say that an antagonist, regardless of how good they are, need to develop in order to be better or comparable to a character that does develop. That's dumb. I'll give a counter example. Most people who've seen The Dark Knight trilogy would probably agree that the Joker is the best character in the trilogy. It's not hard to see why. Yet he's a character that literally does not develop from beginning to end. We know next to nothing about his backstory, we don't explore his psyche, etc., but he's still put head and shoulders above characters who do have high levels of psychological depth and good development.
As for being more complex, how exactly? She absolutely is complex, but more complex than Johan? I haven't seen anything that would put her above him in that regard.
The whole symbolic thing isn't even true anyway.
I understand the first part, but how does that even make Johan "the far better character" ? Because while I can understand preferences based upon different criteria, I still don't see why he would be superior in any way except maybe his narrative impact, so why is that ? From what I've established, Shiki is more complex (concept and psyche at the same time), has more depth, has the better character journey, and can much more play both as a symbolic and "human" character than Johan does.
I never said he was far better because of that, I'm saying you cannot compare Shiki's psychological depth to Johan's because fundamentally the two stories are built differently. KnK explores her psychology but it isn't a story built around that, unlike Monster.
He is superior in almost every way. You haven't shown why she's more complex in the slightest and even her psychology just seems to be the internal conflict between multiple personalities and her inner conflict between bloodlust and her value of life. That's great and all, but that doesn't really compare...at all.
As for your first assessment, I can ask you the same question. If they are not comparable on some factors because they are from different works and narratives, why would you compare Johan's role to say he's better than Shiki when they don't even have the same concept ?
This is why I said Shiki has a lot more substance. Because while Johan does really well in delivering a certain message through the symbol he represents (and not as a "human" character) and is the center point of the narrative, that's basically... it. So if these are his only arguments, then you can either choose to not compare and the debate is over, or you admit that Shiki has the upper hand on a lot more factors than he does, because of her "universality" (both in the symbolic and the "human" area).
Because half of your comparisons and points to Shiki can't logically apply to Johan because he's an antagonist. There isn't a specific type of antagonist that needs to be there in order for them to be good. And having an emotional core is just absolutely not necessary. Hell, it's better for the audience to not be overly attached to the antagonist because they're the literal antagonist of the story.
Shiki has more emotional depth and better development, but Johan handily takes psychology, complexity, philosophy, and motivation. The center point of Monster isn't that Johan isn't human. At best if you want to talk about his symbolism, he acts as a sort of Mephistopheles character, bringing the worst in people, and driving people into indulging in their temptations, regardless of how amoral they are.
You brought in like one or two factors for shiki and then namedropped other stuff without elaborating at all. I don't have to admit anything lmfao.
And, for the second point, this is exactly what I meant by a symbolic way to approach the concept of "regaining humanity". Because, on his own, Johan is just there to deliver this message and not to experience a certain character journey like Shiki does. This is why his conclusion as well as Monster's conclusion as a whole is an empty bed, as the symbolic "Monster" disappeared.
That's not what Johan's there for, what? Did you read Monster? The empty bed isn't the point. The point of the empty bed is that it's clear that someone existed there, that person being Johan. Johan regains his identity.
So, all in all, how does that even conclude that he would be the better character ? Because even if I just agreed with you on the functional aspects of your arguments, that doesn't adress how he specifically does things better than Shiki.
I literally explained it. He's a more complex character with his ontological insecurity crisis, his complex yet simple motivations, and the story itself depicting what could drive a kid to such nihilism. And the contrast between that and him by the end when he's proven wrong and regains his humanity is done better than her. The devil-like nature, the nihilism, the identity crisis he has, the ontological insecurity, etc. make him a more complex character.
Nobody's changing each other's minds with this, so it's best to just agree to disagree at this point.
Besides, Mercurius is better written than both anyway
