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.
No, that's not a misconception. An antagonist is a character anyway and can be whatever it is, just like the main character sometimes can be "not developped" and stay a "static" character. So either you can concede on this aspect or just dismiss the comparison because they're not the same, but then the entire comparison falls flat.
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.
I've yet to see how it is especially more fleshed out than Shiki though. Being mentionned by various characters doesn't make it enough for what you're assessing.
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.
That's not what a human character is though, he symbolizes how you can regain your humanity from nihilism and disappears at the end leaving an empty bed as the "Monster" (the actual symbol) fades away. Also, you yourself admitted that Johan "isn't supposed to change as an antagonist" so why arguing this ? Throughout the story, we never see Johan actually changing, he just disappears at the end as the "Monster" within him was killed during the Rurenheim facing scene, like the symbol he is.
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.
You seem to be implying that there are plenty of nuances when there is really little amount of them, he's basically a reference to the ubermensch concept, not some kind of deeply layered psychological character in itself. His motivations and goals also aren't that hard to understand the moment you get it follows nihilism.
Neither of which are important for an antagonist to begin with, so this isn't a good argument anyway.
That's just dishonest. A lot of antagonists follow this kind of criteria and it seems like you're entirely dismissing the existence of such characters. Anyways, refer to my above point :
So either you can concede on this aspect or just dismiss the comparison because they're not the same, but then the entire comparison falls flat.
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.
That's just reiterating a strawman. I didn't say they NEED to develop, I said they can, and Shiki (as a character) does it far more than Johan, that's it.
If you don't want to compare this because Johan doesn't specifically need to do that, then you admit the entire comparison is not good because both characters have entirely different functions. But, matter of fact, Shiki still has the upper hand concerning this, especially if you still want to argue that Johan is a "human" character (which he quite literally isn't) ; because, well, "humans" are supposed to change and experience a character journey. It's different from a concept or symbol being deconstructed by the narrative of a work of fiction (which is the case in Monster).
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.
Well, that's up to your incredulity, but I could ask you the exact same thing. Shiki has visual characterization of her conflict (through her vest and kimono for example), ties it with her double personnality that delves into different Taoists philosophical interpretations, and wraps it all up with her third personnality and Kara, not to forget the multiple characters she meets that questions her notion of existence and humanity, that's definitely more complex than a concept/symbol being deconstructed by a narrative (I didn't say it isn't complex at all, but simply far less and would at best mean that the narrative of Monster is more complex than Kara no Kyoukai's, but not Johan himself).
The whole symbolic thing isn't even true anyway.
???
I'll just ignore that.
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.
In this case you're just admitting that the comparison isn't even relevant, and the whole comparison falls apart as I've said multiple times earlier.
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.
And then right after admitting it, you're saying he is superior "in almost every way". Huge contradiction if you ask me, and once again how is he superior in almost every way if Shiki is more universal and diverse than he is ? That's a non-argument, I currently have a lot more reasons to say that Shiki is better than you do. So, elaborate on how he is more complex or simply concede that the comparison isn't possible.
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.
Again, refer to what I've stated above.
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.
Explain why, then, as you've never explained exactly what makes him better than Shiki using these criteria, or again you can just concede that they are different so not comparable (typically, comparing motivation is just dishonest if you yourself said that they fill different roles). As for the symbolic part, that's just nihilism being deconstructed, as the "Monster" (or the Ubermensch) disappears at the end which indicates humanity winning over nihilism.
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.
I did brought more, though, if you refuse to see it that's not really my problem. Besides, you didn't elaborate either so that's not a very relevant thing to say. And it's not like I will write a thousand words worth of an analysis or something if in the end you agree to stop comparing.
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.
That's just one thing, there are many things to get from that conclusion, surface level interpretation being that Johan does exist. But the whole conflict of Monster was to oppose Johan's nihilism to Tenma/humanity, with the latter "winning" in the end by destroying the "Monster".
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.
You still didn't explain how this makes him more complex, so I disagree once again. You've even said "complex yet simple motivations", that's just word salad to me. And, for the sentence I've bolded, this is simply flat out wrong to compare their conclusions when their premise is literally not the same, which you didn't elaborated upon anyways, so uh yeah.
Nobody's changing each other's minds with this, so it's best to just agree to disagree at this point.
Fine with that, as I've extensively repeated above.
Besides, Mercurius is better written than both anyway
Don't care + didn't read.
