As I said in a previous entry I came across KnJ by reading a site that called it the worst anime of 2000. I've since finished watching the anime and read the manga to this date. When searching I've also come across discussion and reviews of KnJ. However many of them have been of very poor quality.The other thing that draws me to do this is the controversy that surrounds this anime. Controversy is a type of conflict and from conflict is the source of all drama. If I was more post modern I would be critiquing the controversy itself as a text but that would be silly. Instead I'm going to critique the reviews instead, at least they have some form of concrete instantiation. So I should start at the beginning the first review I read, toonzone.net's "Toons of the 2000s anime we hope never come to America". The article doesn't so much review as a commentary on KnJ's reputation. Given the lack of direct comment on the anime itself it makes me wonder if the author watched the show or just depended on secondary sources.Toonzone's central thesis is that lolicon element is "exploitative and pervasive". Does this charge stand up to scrutiny. First we must define what we mean by exploitative. I would say an element is exploitative if it exists purely there to shock, arose or otherwise stimulate the audience rather then tell a story, or when the story becomes a fig-leaf for the element.For example the pantlessness in strike witches is exploitative as it contributes little to the plot and is just there to entertain fans of girls panties. On the other hand Haruhi molesting Mikuru Asahina isn't exploitative as it demonstrates Haruhi's disregard for personal space and conventional morality.So does the lolicon serve the story or is it the other way around?The first clue on which way this falls is be looking at the demographics for the show on youtube, as well as males 18-24 and males 45-85; KnJ is popular with girls 13-17. Now unless Japanese high schools are overflowing with lolicon lesbians there must be some element other then the lolicon that they are enjoying. Now as a 30 something year old male from Australia knowing what a 13 year old girl enjoys isn't something I'm able to do. Furthermore I'm not going to seek out a young fan and start a conversation with them on this topic, such an act would most likely risk me getting arrested.My interpretation is that in Kodomo no Jikan the lolicon elements and the fan service comes naturally from the story. Rin is a prematurely sexualized girl and the plot is in part Aoki attempting to find thecause of Rin's behaviour and deal with her emotional problems. The first season's arc ends with Rin shaking Aoik's hand and saying to herself that for the time being that this is enough for her.As to the pervasiveness of the lolicon content, the quantity of it varies from episode to episode for example episodes six and twelve have very little lolicon fan service. If its sole reason for existence was fan service then the last episode of the season, the climax episode would be chock full of it but the reverse happens.Onto the youtube reviewers. Let discount Middle of the Oreo's first review which was his first and more or less a gag reaction vid then a real review. To be honest his second review isn't much better its sort of a vague rambling description of the characters.Short Fat Otaku's review. Now he admits that he only watched the first episode and the first is one of the weakest episodes of the anime. From it he seriously misreads the character of Aoki calling him a pedophile and speculating that later on in the story he will try to maintain a romantic relationship with Rin.The problem with this interpretation is that regardless of Kuro's accusations to the contrary Aoki has no romantic or sexual desires for Rin. Even in the first episode, the first thing Aoki says after thenotorious changing room scene is "They don't have anything worth looking at anyway" he simply doesn't find flat chested prepubescent girls sexually desirable.Much of the humour derives from Rin's attempts to seduce the unwilling teacher and much of the drama derives from his efforts to find the cause of Rin's behaviour. If Aoki does love Rin its familial love rather then erotic love.But SFO does pick up on of the central themes of the anime, Aoki's inability to relate to Rin and the other students in his class. To quote the anime.Rin: I hurt Reiji...Aoki: KokonoeRin: Reiji already had a scar ... in spite of that I want to returnto school but Reiji can't be left alone.Aoki: I understand.No... I don't understand, I only had myself.I lived in a normal house and grew up normally.Really its so normal its boring. That's why I don't know muchabout Kokonoe, not much about about Usa, not much about KagamiNot much about the entire class but I want to be able tounderstand them. But as I got to know you more the less Iwish to give up. You taught me how little I know.Given that part of his role as a teacher is to relate to his students and help them this bothers him greatly. Aoki is continuously trying different approaches to bridge this gap.While things may be a matter of differing interpretations influenced by short fat only watching the first ep his section on Kagami is just plain factually incorrect."Why the fuck is the third girl [Kuro Kagami] an out and outcarpet muncher. I have nothing against gays and lesbians. Butis sexual orientation something that (a) completely determined atnine and (b) your willing to act on so decisively at such ayoung age."As I pointed out in http://qtplatypus.livejournal.com/14247.html a significant number (11%) of lesbians who realize there orientation in grade school[1]. I hope you will forgive me for dipping into the vocabulary of queer theory but there is a clear heteronormative bias in Short Fat Okatu's writing. He questions Kuro's same sex orientation but not Rin or Mimi's opposite sex orientation. SFO must be taken to task also for his calling Kuro "carpet muncher" he conflates behaviour and orientation.That is lesbians are not lesbians because they lick another womans genitals, they are lesbians because they love women. By using the term "Carpet muncher" one supports the inaccurate characterization that homosexuality is all about sex.Actually the manga and anime treat Kuro with a seriousness I've never seen anime treat GLBT youth. Unlike for example Card Captura Sakura's Tomoyo Daidouji or Magical Lyrical Nanoha's leads not only is the lesbianism a part of the text rather then the subtext but in the fact that Kuro gets a coming out scene in the Ni Gakki OVA.Kuro: I really like this kid. I've liked this kid since the first grade.Shiro: Is that so.Shiro (thinking): Kids these days are maturing so quickly.Kuro: This kid... she's a girl.Shiro: Hea?Kuro: Even though we are friends I really want to kiss her and stuff. When we hold hands my heart races.Shiro-chan, what do you think?Shiro (thinking): OK, let's see that child psych class I took in collage said something about this. They saidthat at a young age, same-sex attractions are often transitory.Shiro: Do not worry.Kuro: (Happy gasping sound)Shiro: If you don't think about it, you'll turn out normal by the time you grow up.Kuro: What do you mean "normal"?What's so strange about me?Am I not normal?Just forget it.Forget that we ever spoke!Interestingly the Japanese perspective on schoolgirl lesbians and SFO's western perspective can be contrasted in that scene. In mainstream western thought homosexuality is viewed as sexual thing a thing within the adult domain however in Japanese thought lesbianism between young girls is considered an emotional thing something that one grows out of as one becomes an adult.The final point I wish to make about SFO's review is that he strips away the context to make a point that if the context was present would undermine his point. For example he shows a scene where Rin isdropping her panties in the presence of Aoki while with a mouth full of moral indignation he yells "Oh my GOD!". However if he allowed the scene to speak for itself why Rin was acting as she was would have been revealed.The scene in question starts with Aoki and Rin discussing how Rin had harassed her previous teacher until he had a mental breakdown and quit. After Rin states that she feels no guilt for doing this, that her action was justified because the teacher had emotionally abused Mimi Aoki responds that he will need to discuss it with her parents.It is at this point Rin drops her panties and delivers the line "If I screamed 'HELP' what to you think would happen?".In context this scene isn't a girl meaningless act of fan-service. Its a girl blackmailing her teacher so that he doesn't call her parents. Now a legitimate critique of the work could challenge the effectiveness of this scenes execution, the necessity of using the camera angle used and if it works from the perspective of the narrative. But to simply cherry pick the scene, strip it of all context is at best misleading and worst an act of intellectualdishonesty.In contrast Vixen's review of Kodomo No Jikan speaks of her professionalism. She watched the entire anime and gave a commentary based on its actual strengths and weaknesses. Even her rant aboutlolicon and pedophilia which seems mandatory for these reviews had a degree of nuance.There are a few points I did wish to draw her up on. I was going to rant about how vixen reifies between real little girls and fake little girls but that ended up in the previous rant so read that.The other point I wished to address was vixen's statement that Aoki wouldn't of had certain "reactions" if his thoughts where pure. Those reactions are governed by the autotomic nervous system rather then the conscious mind; sometimes it just takes friction to activate it.As Vixen correctly points out we don't see Kuro's mother in the first season, but she has a brief appearance in the OVA I mentioned above. She's some form of professional who is rarely at home and takes littleinterest in raising her only child. Also I do found it interesting that Vixen is the only one who didn't criticise Mimi for the size of her breasts.Vixen's review was concise, accurate and informative, a rare gem among otherwise impoverished field.Doing this little exercise thought me much. Though I suspect I learned more about myself and the process of reviewing rather then about what I reviewed. To do a review properly even the half ass effort I made here requires a thorough examination of the source material. Also I learned allot doing the background research much I didn't even get to use. I just hope that my readers enjoyed this half as much as I did in preparing it.Though I suspect that my motivations for such a strident defence of this anime is because the author has managed to create in me sympathy for Rin and seeing attacks on her motivates me to attempt to defendher. Pulling that off is a pretty big accomplishment.[1] L. Elliott and C. Brantley, Sex on Campus: The Naked Truth Aboutthe Real Sex Lives of College Students (New York: Random House, 1997),pp. 163-4.