Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei
I've wondered a bit why both sides aren't using "non-lethal" weapons like rubber bullets. The conflict seems to take place within pre-determined rules; I'm just surprised the rules seem to permit lethal weapons. I don't see many deaths on either side during the military encounters; the boy who is killed by a rebounding bullet is the first death I can remember. You'd have thought a civilian casualty, particularly the death of a child, would have resulted in some additional rules to protect bystanders. Rather than setting rules about where it's acceptable to fire their weapons, perhaps the government should just replace the weapons and the bullets with something less deadly.
|
Assuming you're talking about Ep6, I don't think the MIB soldier killed the boy. He fired a warning shot that landed several yards away and the boy tripped in surprise. Like you've said, the death of a child would have caused a firestorm of controversy far worse than the Hino Nightmare, and it would probably have provoked a good deal more than a fist-fight from the defending Task Force members.
As for rubber bullets, that is a good question. The first obvious answer is probably that the author didn't think of it?
Going by the story, on the other hand, I think it's most probably because tensions on both sides have grown well beyond whatever whatever restraints they originally had. Rubber bullets are normally associated with riot police, designed to take down mass civilian riots without causing casualties. After the fatalities of the Hino Nightmare, I think the more outspoken elements of Library Corps decided that enough was enough - if the MIB had no qualms about killing people, then they would return the "favour" in kind. In truth however, the mainstream factions on both sides would probably want to avoid deaths as far as possible - it'll be brother vs brother after all, the worse aspect of fighting a civil war. The Library Corps rationalised that if they didn't have the power to defend themselves, then they'd end up being pushed around by those in power. Once they've become an armed faction, it's very difficult to make them surrender their weapons.
Think about it - had the US had any luck persuading Americans to surrender their guns? A similar situation probably applies to this story.
Saber-rattling doesn't quite convey the same meaning when both sides know they are only "playing" with wooden swords.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei
I've grown to like this show much more over the past few episodes because the characters are so winning and the script so witty. In that sense it's a bit like Kure-nai which also relies on excellent writing and strong characters. In both shows the actual plot seems as much a vehicle for getting us involved with the characters as a motivation for watching in itself. That opinion is based entirely on how the anime is presented; I'd imagine the novels for Toshokan Sensou focus more on the story itself.
|
I love both
Kure-nai and
Toshokan Sensou for different reasons.
I love
Toshokan Sensou because it provokes deeper reflection on deeper sociological issues despite its apparently "silly" story.
Kure-nai, on the other hand, has so far been a masterpiece of character development. In terms of art and animation direction it's difficult to say which show is better because each show is trying to communicate different moods.
Toshokan S. aims for light-hearted entertainment combined with social commentary, hence the modern "manga" look, while
Kure-nai feels more like a show that lounges around in a smoky cigar room with blues jazz playing in the background, because of its slightly more adult themes. Bottom-line - both shows are using their respective aesthetic styles very effectively to convey their stories.
In the end,
Toshokan Sensou comes up top for me for now. It's simply the more entertaining of the two shows. But it's lead is very, very slim.
