Review:

Pro:
Ode to Kirihito is actually one or maybe even several allegories rolled into one. The main one I noticed was: is man (or human) actually an animal and does he rise above the status of “animal” just because he is a “human”. Through out the story, there is a lot focus on the perception what truly a “human” is. Through the use of the disease that turns one into a dog, the story shows that though actions one defines themselves as human. Also in reverse people that look human, can define themselves as animals through their action.

This also touches on the common theme that people fear that what is different from them or they don’t understand. The story touches on the fact that people who are disabled and look differently are treated in a different manner. This is touched on by other real life illnesses besides the dog disease.

The story also gets into the subject of power, status and station and the benefits and problems it brings. Several characters are driven into bad situations partially due to their obligations, loyalties and pride. There may be some cultural disconnect considering it’s all set in a older time and in another culture, but I was able to follow why certain characters did what they did. I may not have liked what they did, but I could follow their character logic on why they did these things.

Finally it does touch on the problems or inadequacies of the Japanese Medical Community. I have no idea if such problems are still relevant to this day, but in the context of the story it did paint a picture of the Medical Community being so organized and structuralized that it eventually worked against itself because more time and effort had to go into the actual maintaining of this entity than into actually medical work. The Medical Community had become its own little social-political environment, with all the various subgroups and political maneuvering that comes with that.

On the art, the creator does experiment and takes chances with his storytelling. While normal actions are mainly conveyed in the story, he also attempts to convey abstract concepts and feelings through his art work. Also the art work changes when necessary to convey the correct mood or theme.

Con:
In order to fit all the pieces of the story together and make logic of the various allegories that were made, sometime suspension of disbelief is stretched some in order to make all the story elements work. Coincidence happens almost too often in order to make the plot move along.

While I did say the story was about what defines a human, I should have said a man, because the story focuses almost primarily on the male aspect of it. Yes most of the men in the story are flawed and imperfect but there is also more explanation on what drives these men to do what they do. The only woman in the story that has a clear motivation is the Nun, but hers is an issue of faith that could almost been done with a male character as well. Yes the women in the story do things, but the creator doesn’t really show why they do these things.

On the art, while the creator does experiment, he seems to do it too sparingly. There’s long sections of simple paneled pages and then amazing and interesting paneling for maybe a page or two and then back to the normal paneling. To see that there could me so much more to the art and paneling but to only show us glimpses of that, I feel is too much of a tease. While I got used to the cartoony art, but when I saw the artist was capable of so much more, I felt cheating by not getting the “better” art all the time. It’s possible that I’m being selfish, but if one can put their best into a work, why not. If there was an artistic reason for using the cartoony art, I couldn’t see it.

Related links: