I'd say it's a type 3 kind of story, but the monster doesn't fit any of the types.
Hoookay...if we want to chase that line of thought... Here's my interpretation.
[spoiler:3m7by02i]Shonen Bat/Li'l Slugger seemed to be directly tied to the cutesy mascot character Maromi and the miasma that almost engulfs the city at the very end. All three were different ways for the people of the city to avoid coming to grips with their own issues. Maromi was idle joy--perhaps a desire to go back to a childlike state of innocence--while the other two entities were more overly malevolent. A symbolic "return to childhood" and an acceptance of the weight of one's own action is what liberates the city in the end. If they're actually facets of the same psychological beast--which I believe they are...[/spoiler:3m7by02i]
The end result is closest to a type 3. The same sort of type 3 that the Persona series rummages around in, to be exact.
Paranoia Agent was actually what made me sit down and really, really look at my life. It inspired me to make more of myself than I had been, and I'm happier now than I ever have been, too.
-- I think we agree.[spoiler:3m7by02i]The series was about a certain kind of lazy and irresponsible kind of childishness... although I'd say Marumi doesn't seem that lazy and irresponsible herself -- it's more like she's very engaged in making others lazy. Just like Shonen Bat isn't lazy himself, but very active in helping others be lazy. And the miasma is just this primal force...
Maybe I'm over analyzing, but the way I understood it, the type 3 monster is supposed to represent a human flaw by having that flaw themselves...
Yeah, I could've gone either way on that point. That's actually what I was trying to delve into with the text versus metatext conversation upthread. I want to say that a type 3 can actually be--literally--a human flaw incarnate, but that takes really careful writing or it ceases to be horror. For starters, actually calling it something like "rage incarnate" should probably be a avoided before the denouement, as it strips away the monster's mystique.
But the video seems quite clear to me that a "type 3 monster" has to have the flaw he's representing, especially when you consider the examples (vampires and werewolves) -- so I guess I just don't agree with the categories.
In that case, I suppose I'll stick with expanding that third definition for my personal use, then--that is to say, I'm not necessarily sure I agree with the categories as presented, myself.
You know, I like thinking about monsters in general... Though I mostly like monsters that have their own mythos to them, like vampires, werewolves, etc., not monsters like you'd see in Monsters Inc. or whatever, though those are fun, too.
Though I do know monsters can basically be anything that can frighten us. Ironically, some of the monsters I think about are usually more casual monsters that don't actively look to frighten people, they just come off that way because of the stories that surround them, not to mention some of the macabre stuff they do.