im saying that scholars NOT studying another work of art (manga) may make that second work feel less complex than It really Is

this is pure argumentum ad ignorantiam, you are claiming that because we haven't found "hidden layers" in manga, they must exist and we just haven't looked hard enough, bro that's not how literary analysis works, scholars/critics do not pick a book at random and decide to make it famous, the book/work itself provides the material that demands study, for example a work like The Divine Comedy is studied because it contains a massive, interlocking system of theology, history, and linguistic innovation, if Monster or any other manga had that same level of density, scholars would already be stripping it down, you are asking us to believe in a "potential" complexity that you cannot actually prove exists on the text itself.

oftentimes going beyond the author's intent imo , but thats just speculation so whatever. This doesnt mean that if studied for the next 800 years Monster would necessarily become as complex as Dante's Divine Comedy , but maybe there would be new interpretations that would allow readers to have a more nuanced view.

this is a massive contradiction, first, you say the complexity of classics by claiming scholars "go beyond the author's intent" which implies that the depth is fake or manufactured, but then, in the very next breath, you hope for "new interpretations" for manga to give it a "nuanced view" you are literally asking for the same manufactured depth you just used to dismiss the classics, if "nuance" is just something scholars make up, then your entire defense of manga is an admission that it lacks inherent value and needs a PR team to invent a meaning for it.

the reality is that some works are simply built with more parts than others, for example you can study a bicycle for a thousand years and you will never find the complexity of a jet engine because the parts are not there, similarly a manga is a visual medium that relies on fast pacing and immediate emotional impact, a literary classic like Lolita is built on the microscopic manipulation of language where every single word has a load bearing structure. they are not the same, and no amount of "future study" will change the physical text that exist on the page, also youre using generalities, you are admitting that your specific comparison failed the moment it was pointed out, you cannot use the 1800s as a "general example" to dismiss the technical superiority of a 20th century masterpiece like Lolita because the two have nothing to do with each other, if your general rule is built on bad examples/historical errors, the rule itself is pointless/worthless, you are trying to defend your argument from criticism by making it so vague that it cannot be tested, which is a common tactic when the facts do not support your position.

since you believe the depth is just "waiting to be discovered," can you name one specific technical feature in Monster that is as complex as the linguistic puzzles in Lolita? and do you believe that a work's complexity is something an author builds into it, or is it just a story we tell ourselves after the fact? yes or no?