Hi everyone! Anime Book Club is back in session with the first two episodes of Kino’s Journey. Just to let everyone know the drill, what I’ll do here is summarize the episodes in question, and then post a few thoughts and some potential discussion points. Feel free to post your own thoughts, whether related to the questions or not, in the comments on the post. I usually try to have these posts up around noon or 1pm CST each Sunday afternoon. Feel free to post any time during the week and share the posts around in case anyone you know might be interested in getting in on the discussion! As the weeks go on, I’ll post links to previous weeks so they can be referenced easily.
Just a few notes: I know the WordPress comments system is not the most convenient to use. While I don’t really have the time to make changes to that currently, I’ll be looking at it for the future. For now, just know that if you’re a first time commenter I’ll have to approve your comment before it shows up, but once you have an approved comment any subsequent ones should show up without being approved after that. I had this in place because I used to get a lot of spam and rude/abusive comments; if there’s an uptick in that again I might have to move back to heavier moderation. Also, and this is related to the show itself, I’m going to adopt a gender-neutral approach to referencing Kino’s character when writing about them. The Crunchyroll subs are not good about this (to my memory), but it seems to me that it’s in the spirit of the story itself to refer to Kino in this way. I don’t plan to play gender police in the comments but I’d ask that you at least consider this point as I’ve seen it made very well across the anime blog-o-sphere and it’s more inclusive.
With all that said, let’s get started!
Episode 1 – A Country Where People Can Kill Others – Crunchyroll – Hulu – Funimation
Content Warning: Gun and crossbow violence and related blood.
While traveling to their next destination, Kino and Hermes (the talking motorcycle or “motorrad”) encounter another traveler resting along a riverside. The man is on his way to a nearby country and is very excited to make his way there because he has heard that killing other people is legal. Having come from a country where even small infractions are heavily punished for the good of the public order, he is looking forward to the freedom of being able to kill those who upset him. When asked, Kino declines a request to help the man bring his supplies into town, and goes on their way.
Expecting death and destruction, Kino is surprised to find that the country where people can kill others is very orderly, with pleasant people who welcome travelers to stay in their midst. The countryside is lush and beautiful, and the country specializes in a particularly ridiculous multi-layered crepe cake that seems counter intuitive to the place’s hardcore reputation. This doesn’t seem to Kino or Hermes like the type of place where people would want to kill others, let alone somewhere where they’d have the opportunity to do so. But there is an unsettling undercurrent to many of Kino’s interactions with the citizenry – each person seems to have a weapon (whether a gun or other item) at the ready, and those items are, as they all state, for killing people. None of the citizens seem particularly hesitant about that fact, either. A town elder even puts an offer of citizenship on the table for Kino, since Kino seems like someone who would be able to kill others.
The town’s specific nature is revealed when the man Kino met earlier arrives and claims he was deeply insulted when Kino refused to help carry his supplies. He’s now a citizen, and immediately takes that to its logical conclusion by threatening to kill Kino over this matter. It’s then that the citizenry, brandishing their various tools of death, fully articulate the nuances of their local laws. While murder isn’t prohibited by law, that doesn’t mean that it is allowed, and those who attempt to murder others will then have their own lives taken. The man is taken out and Kino goes on their way. Outside of town, another man asks about the details of the country where people can kill others, and Kino gets the impression that he’ll be a perfect fit there.
Episode 2 – Colosseum – Crunchyroll – Hulu – Funimation
Content warning: Gunshot-related death, seen from behind a barrier.
Kino arrives at the gates of a country that’s been described as beautiful and clean, but soon realizes that things have changed greatly. All travelers who enter the country become entrants into a tournament at the country’s colosseum. The winner becomes a citizen and can amend the country’s laws; losers may only leave with their lives, depending on the mercy of their opponents. This rubs Kino the wrong way but they decide to stay and participate in the tournament, which is set to begin very soon. As Kino travels to the holding area, its clear that the country has been in a steady decline, with garbage strewn across its vacant streets, and crumbling infrastructure all over.
Kino proves their gun prowess early on, readily defeating their opponents without killing them. Soon Kino reaches the finals and faces off against a man named Shizu, someone who proves himself to be very skilled with a sword. Throughout their time in this country, Kino learned more about how it reached this particular state – as it turns out, the current king killed his father, a good but strict king, and allowed the country to fall into hedonism and violence. Kino gets the impression that Shizu has some specific investment in winning the tournament and accomplishing some change, though Kino also has a specific reason to be there. It’s when Kino declines to yield and reveals a hidden weapon that the two combatants learn that their goal is the same. Kino fires a final shot, which “misses” and kills the king. As the winner, Kino proclaims as their new law that all the citizens will fight to the death, and the one remaining will become the new king. Kino then leaves the country to its own devices.
On their way out of town, Kino and Shizu have a final meeting. Shizu was the exiled prince of that country, and wanted revenge on his father. Kino was also there seeking revenge. It just so happened that their goals resulted in the same outcome.
Discussion Thoughts and Questions (Feel free to share additional ones in the comments!)
In the opening to episode 1, Kino describes the feeling they get when they are feeling most down – it’s it’s during those bleak times that the world reveals its beauty to them. This becomes a theme throughout the series (hence its subtitle “The Beautiful World”), which I think is good to keep in mind just in general. I find this to be a comforting thought nowadays when there are so many bad things happening in the USA – though there are people committing atrocious acts, there are people who continue to work to reveal the truth
- In episode 1, there seems to be some linguistic ambiguity regarding exactly what the law allows in terms of killing others. Despite the fact that I’ve watched the episode multiple times, it doesn’t exactly sit well with me when Regel states that killing people isn’t prohibited, but it also isn’t allowed. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
- When the violent man describes the country he left, he talks about its strictly-enforced rules and extreme public order. At the end of the episode, the peaceful man describes having left a country where he had to kill in order to survive. It seems to me that the author is making a statement about the efficacy of laws and how having more laws and harsher penalties in place does not necessarily result in people having a positive mindset. I was wondering what others’ opinions were on this point.
- Regel seems like an interesting character whose existence is still ambiguous by the end of the episode. The violent man describes him as a terrorist who killed many people, escaped prison, and went into hiding in this country. In person, he seems much like the other citizens – living a quiet life, but being able to kill when required. This may be a little bit of a leading question, but what does this say about our perception of/empathy toward others’ acts?
I’ve always thought the “Colosseum” story arc was sort of interesting, as it reveals something different about Kino. Going into the series I think it’s common to think of Kino as more of an observer – we get a perception of every country through Kino’s eyes, and Kino generally seems to take more of a hands-off approach to things that are going on there, or at least doesn’t offer any direct criticism against some of the more disagreeable aspects. The people of each country reveal themselves to be good, bad, or (more often than not) much more complicated than the simple conceits of their local ordinances might imply. This episode reveals Kino to have feelings and actual skin in the game. They’re angry about how the woman and her husband on the cart were treated in a country that they were so looking forward to visiting, among other things that we can speculate about.
One thing I also like about this episode is how Kino’s thoughts in the opening carry throughout the story. Kino states that “every now and then you should use your abilities to the fullest. If you don’t, your skills become rusty.” Obviously this becomes very true and Kino’s firearm skills (as well as Kino’s diplomacy and mercy skills) get a workout. It’s been long enough since I watched it first that I don’t recall whether or not each episode starts off with such a lesson, but I find it interesting that both so far have begun with a particular thought or lesson.
- Kino appears especially angry when they’re stopped by the guards at the gate of the country and given a breakdown of the rules. I think there’s some ambiguity as to what specifically this anger stems from (that the country was not as advertised, that the rules are unfair to spring on travelers/unfair in general, that Kino was already aware of the false advertisement and has some other reason to be angry about them, etc.). What’s your opinion on this?
- In the final moments of the episode, Kino states that “revenge is ludicrous,” and Shizu agrees. Yet both of them participated in the Colosseum tournament for reasons of revenge. What do you think about this obvious contradiction?
- While there isn’t much detail regarding this part of the story until the end, Kino’s two encounters with the woman on the horse-drawn cart (as well as her husband), is interesting to think about. During their second encounter, after the woman’s husband has been killed in the tournament, the woman tells Kino “you should definitely stop by that country.” How do you interpret this statement, considering what the woman has experienced prior to it?
I hope everyone enjoyed these first two episodes. I think they’re a great starting point for our discussion and a good lead-off into what’s a very interesting anime series. Again, feel free to link this post around to people who might be interested in participating, and happy viewing!
11 replies on “Anime Book Club: Kino’s Journey~The Beautiful World~ Week #1”
[…] Week 1 – Episodes 1 and 2 […]
I’m a bit late to the party, but still jumping in now!
One thing I haven’t seen in the comments yet regarding “A Country Where People Can Kill Others” is the issue of mob mentality. It seemed to me that murder was still functionally “illegal” in that country, but instead of going through any sort of due process, the “mob” of townspeople got to be judge, jury, and executioner all at once. This episode gave us a clear cut example of a “bad guy” getting what was coming to him, but what about other, less clear situations (e.g., what if someone accidentally kills another but the mob mistakenly comes to the conclusion that it was on purpose?)? Frankly, it was disturbing to me.
But that also makes me think about our current justice systems and how many of us just let it … happen, in the background of our lives, something that most of us never take a direct part in. How different would our perspectives be if we all had to take a personal hand in dispensing justice, instead of just turning aside and letting “the authorities” handle it? Would someone who is okay with a state-dispensed death penalty feel the same if they were required to take an active hand in every execution? And in this episode, it did seem that – even if it wasn’t explicitly stated – every citizen had to take part. It reminds me of old-timey Biblical stonings.
So it saddened me a bit that Kino told the man at the end that he would like the country he was heading to. The man had specifically said he didn’t want to kill anymore, yet Kino sent him on anyway. Thinking about it now after having seen episode 2, this also reminds me of the woman in the carriage who told Kino to go on to the Colloseum country, despite us later finding out that she knew it was a terrible place. I wonder if this – that is, encouraging other travelers to visit countries that they maybe shouldn’t – will be a theme. (I suppose it would fit in with the “when everything seems bleak, the world reveals beauty to me” theme from the very beginning of episode 1 – perhaps a small way to force that perspective on other unwitting travelers.)
These first episodes did give me the idea that I wasn’t going to like Kino very much. I don’t think I particularly *dislike* them at this point, but they seem like a rather blank slate when it comes to morality. The phrase “when in Rome” comes to mind, which makes sense in that the show is about Kino’s journey and not Kino themselves. Still, the lack of reaction and the callousness they display certainly haven’t done anything to endear them to me so far.
The exception, I suppose, would be the anger Kino showed in Colloseum – at the guards, at the king, and at the country. I was particularly struck by how Kino went against trope – at the point where you would expect the “good guy” to announce a new era of peace and prosperity, they went ahead and plunged the country into further darkness, carrying out a revenge on the country as a whole instead of making any attempt to heal it. I must admit, I didn’t like Kino making the unilateral decision that the country and its people were simply unsalvageable.
Anyway, i have no perspective on this series other than these episodes – I’ve never even heard of this series before now, much less seen any earlier versions. I’m curious to see what the next countries will bring.
Side note: I appreciate Kino’s excellent trigger discipline. Too many times we see TV characters running around with their finger *on* the trigger of their weapons, which is a great way to get you and your allies shot (by you). Proper trigger discipline means only putting your finger on the trigger if you intend to fire. So Kudos to Kino!!
It’s never too late to jump in!
It’s interesting that you should mention Kino specifically. I’ve been trying not to go off of what I remember from the original “Kino” anime series, but I feel differently towards Kino now than I did back then. I’ll stick to this version of the story and just say that despite the fact that they’re sort of a POV character and serve as a vehicle to introduce us to the ethical conundrums present in every country they visit, this modern Kino feels a lot more as if they have their own fairly obvious moral compass that’s not always in sync with what seems like the morally “correct” or “heroic” choice. I haven’t quite decided how I feel about that, except that I tend to like things that run contrary to my expectations if I can at least see the logic in it.
I like the thought that perhaps sending people along to places which might not jive with their sense of justice is some backwards way of allowing them to see beauty in the bleakness. Perhaps this is something that all travelers are aware of, and see it as their duty to allow their fellow travelers to experience the lows and highs of human emotion.
When we learned that the supposedly violent town was actually very peaceful, what I thought might be going on was that living in a place where people can kill without being punished forces you to behave a lot better than in societies where murder is considered a crime. But I think the explanation they gave was easier to accept, because no matter how kind and pleasant you make yourself become, there are always jerks like the stranger at the beginning who just wants to kill for the fun of it.
Now that I’m reading your comment again, it reminded me of a thought I had related to how the first episode could reflect on some current political stuff. Kino spots guns and other weaponry throughout episode 1; it’s clear that pretty much everyone in town is packing. There’s this thought by some in our country that, if more “good guys” had guns, it would be a deterrent against “bad guys” wanting to shoot up schools and malls and such. So I wonder, are the citizens of the town really just naturally pleasant and looking to defend their way of life against violent interlopers, or are they outwardly pleasant because they know full well anyone they meet could kill them if they got upset enough? I kind of doubt the episode was leaning in that direction (I at least didn’t get that impression) but I thought it was interesting to consider.
Episode 1:
regarding question 1: For one, it seems possible that the wording is made more clear in the original language. I just don’t know. That being said, it seems perfectly reasonable. Something not being prohibited doesn’t mean it is without consequence.
On a related note, I think the varying reputations of this town are interesting. The violent man’s idea of what the town will be makes the most sense as what reputation it should have. People naturally exaggerate things. Someone visited the town and saw that everyone had a weapon, possibly even noting that killing was not prohibited. They relayed that information to someone else, but didn’t emphasize how peaceful it is. The person who heard that, whether through memory or misinterpretation told the next person about it with even less of an understanding of what the place is actually like, and so on.
The person at the end of the episode is looking for it as a polite country. That reputation seems less likely to be spread, as it is less “glamorous” to casual gossip, but also is reasonable. What people notice about the country depends so much on what their expectations are going in and whether they are looking for animosity. I.e. The ubiquitous weaponry can be seen as hostility, even if they aren’t being used.
Episode 2:
It is very possible that I missed something obvious, but I never really interpreted Kino’s participation in the tournament to be motivated by revenge. While I felt that their motivations were a bit opaque, my primary guesses were that they were taking a moral high ground with regards to the city’s rules. Kino was applying the philosophy of the previous town to this one, believing that the world would be better if people who killed by their own will should be killed, killing the king as one way of enforcing this and instituting the new rule as a shortcut to completing the other.
The interaction at the gate was indeed ambiguous, but my interpretation was that Kino was annoyed at being talked down to by the guards, not angry at anything related to the rules. The guards are dismissive of Kino’s ability to survive in the colosseum, so Kino pulls a gun on them to make them at least reconsider their tone.
In terms of the second episode, I think I put a lot of stock in the fact that there was a flashback at the beginning of the episode to the woman in the horse-drawn cart, and then another at the end when we learn what happened to her and her husband. Either Kino knew that something bad had happened during the second meeting (since the husband wasn’t there), or upon arrival at the gates of the country managed to put two and two together and deduce that they’d been duped. Or that Kino had been duped by the woman’s words, “you should definitely stop by that country.” I feel like there was some motivation for Kino to be angry from one of those situations.
That said, I like what you said regarding people looking by their own will, and in that case I think it was clever for the anime staff to pair these episodes together (originally “Colosseum” was in the middle of the old series, and I don’t think the story in e1 was adapted before).
I thought the first episode was rather simple; primarily laying out the ground rules for how Kino operates and what the show will roughly look like. For those of us (which I think is most of us) that have seen the original show, I don’t know if there was that much new information or a whole lot to contemplate.
The second episode I really enjoyed a lot. I can’t quite say why, but when I watched Kino get upset at the gates, it made perfect sense to me, even though I didn’t know what the lady in the carriage at the start of the episode was supposed to mean. Given that the show also came back to it at the end, and the somewhat parallel debrief with Shizu after the main events, I don’t think you can discount that Kino was thinking about that woman when they got mad. That said, I still think it was broader than being upset about how one particular person was treated, and I think this ties in to the “revenge is ludicrous” contradiction, as well as Kino’s choice of rule to impose. The rule of forcing outsiders to fight (possibly to the death) for a chance at citizenship is obviously pretty evil on it’s own. However, it also flies directly against Kino’s way of life: being a traveler who just wants to pass through. Moreover, it specifically takes advantage of those who did not have good information when they arrived in town, which is one of the things Kino specifically asks the jerk guards about, and ties back to both the woman on the cart and what was being discussed above about episode 1, and how the same country and rules can be talked about and understood in different ways. So, I would say Kino’s motivation was both about the woman on the cart, and about other things as well.
All of this comes back with Kino’s later decisions. I find Kino compelling because they are not a moralist, and absolutely not interested in fixing countries, or in a larger sense, fixing humanity. This retouches the when I’m feeling bleak, I see the beauty concept. Kino does not try to end the specific policy they object to, or establish a more ordered government or society, but rather says “Fine, you people were okay letting this king screw up your country so badly, I’m going to give you the next okay to burn it down.” The ambiguity at the end with whether Shizu, or really any other force, will try to go back and restore order in the country is something I really love about this show (or expect I will, and did about the original). Most stories focus on a specific conflict, and on the heroes trying to achieve a particular good end. This show recognizes that many forces are in the world. We saw how one king can really screw up a beautiful country, but not without the support of at least part of the citizenry who decided to accept and support him, and the show obviously doesn’t care too much what happens to them. Similarly, it leaves open the question of whether or how order will be restored to the country, assuming that there will be agents who wish to work towards restoring order and having a beautiful country once again, and leaving it at that. This show’s focus is on Kino, who is a traveler. They are not going to set up connections and try to build a place that can be a good home. Rather, they are seeing the world, they are touring humanity. They are taking in the beautiful and the bleak, and reflecting on both.
My first thought is that this is a cross between Italo Calvino’s “Invisible Cities” and the Twilight Zone.
I noted the design influence of “Western” in the first episode, as the violent man was clearly expecting a Wild West anything-goes kind of place. (And I got a sense of hostility from the cows.) I also noticed that Kino had heard the place was very polite, which I contrasted with the violent man’s description. I suspected the violent man would soon learn that yes, you can kill people, but they can kill you right back and faster.
Also, the violent man didn’t think through the implication of what was illegal–he began his second encounter with Kino as a robbery.
The violent man’s description of Regel might have been off due to the way the news was reported. I suspect Regel was like the peaceful man, seeing the killing of others as a necessity for whatever cause, but not a good thing to do.
As we see in the Colosseum episode, Kino is also willing to kill if they have to, but would much rather not. On the other hand, Kino is fully willing to let fools destroy themselves and others from the natural effects of their actions.
I like your comparison to the “Wild West” and I think the first time I watched the episode, I had the impression that Kino’s confrontation with the violent man would go down like a duel at high noon – all the citizens got the heck out of the way and seemed to hunker-down in their respective buildings. The way the actual outcome broke away from that was unexpected.
I think what I was getting at regarding Regel is the way that people’s motivations can be seen as villainous or heroic depending on what side of the conflict you’re on. Someone who kills others could be seen as a terrorist by a certain group of people, but as heroic for those who are working towards similar goals as the person causing the destruction. Of course, to the violent man, Regel is a hero /because/ he supposedly killed a lot of people and was able to “get away with it,” so even our common ethical distinctions don’t necessarily apply in every situation.
I agree with you about Kino re: the Colosseum; I think it just startled me at first since it seemed so emotionally-motivated and counter to what would normally be expected of a protagonist (even a hands-off one). Also, so much is squeezed into one episode that it’s a little bit of whiplash.
I was reminded of Richard Henry Benson, the pulp character called The Avenger, who in his classic stories was very scrupulous about not directly taking lives. But he also had no compunctions about setting up death traps that activated if the villains carried out their evil schemes.