A style or a place of origin? Your definition of manga

[Ramadahl]

What if there are foreigners working for a Japanese company drawing Manga, is their art any less 'Manga' than the Japanese artists?

I think this is one of the problems that can come up when you try to specify an art form only coming from a certain place - the quoted scenario, and others like it, can result in a very convoluted final definition, or a very narrow one.
Previously, it's been fine to have manga and Japanese comics as being interchangeable because no-one else was doing manga (feel free to correct me on this point). Now that other countries (Korea, America, etc.) are making comics in manga style, rather than giving different names to the work each time a different country produces some (thinking of manwha here), surely it would make more sense to just refer to all works with the specific style as manga? At this point I'd like to make reference to other art styles that, regardless of the country they originated in, are not limited to only this country (even if they are by far and away most prevalent there). Unfortunately I don't know jack about art so I can't think of any examples, but I'm pretty sure it's a valid point nonetheless :roll: .

I think it's okay to say something is manga influenced, but to say that a Western comic is actually manga seems wrong and misleading.

Couldn't this be taken to be a little insulting though? Say a western and a Japanese artist are both inspired by the same manga, and go off and draw their own manga. Now, one has created a "real" manga, but the other is simply "manga influenced". Harsh...

 

[3nvy]

but then that throws up the question of what to call the Western stuff that's being made (if you define manga simply as 'Japanese comics' then American of British 'manga' would just be comics, and that would imply stuff like Marvel, which it clearly isn't...)

What I'm trying to say is I reckon we need a new term to describe non-Japanese manga style work...

western manga= wanga

:shock:

watch how you say that.

 

[where's my cow?]

western manga= wanga

Lol! Fantastic, I can't wait to see what kind of stuff wanga-ka's produce...

 

[Laughing Manji]

I use the term 'manga' as referring to japanese comics in this response.

Previously, it's been fine to have manga and Japanese comics as being interchangeable because no-one else was doing manga (feel free to correct me on this point). Now that other countries (Korea, America, etc.) are making comics in manga style, rather than giving different names to the work each time a different country produces some (thinking of manwha here), surely it would make more sense to just refer to all works with the specific style as manga?

You're entire argument hinges on the fact that you can:
a) define 'manga style'
b) assume that manga is no more than just its style

In reality manga is steeped in japanese cultural influences, created for a japanese audience and is far more than a visual style. It is pretty obvious from a broad selection of titles that there is something different about japanese comics vs everyone elses comics.

Couldn't this be taken to be a little insulting though? Say a western and a Japanese artist are both inspired by the same manga, and go off and draw their own manga. Now, one has created a "real" manga, but the other is simply "manga influenced". Harsh...

You are assuming here that 'manga' is some kind of artistic supremacy. Or that imitation of the style is sufficient to produce the authentic product. Or in another way, aren't the artists producing manga-influenced works really creating works that are a fusion of different styles & cultures? Aren't they entitled to their own label? For the moment OEL manga has to do. There is a possibility that down the road this movement might grow into a mass market western comics trend, and in so doing will leave its 'imitation' roots.

In any case the arguments about a western manga-influenced artist producing authentic manga are all moot until someone produces somethign that even comes close to it. There is something intangible about japanese comics that make them distinct to other nations comics. It is actually very difficult to define why this is so. Its certainly not stylistic, content wise or whatever. Drawing chibi-big eyes characters, using sweatdrops etc. and selling them in the traditional 200page small volume formats doesn't make it manga.

 

[Paul]

I think it's okay to say something is manga influenced, but to say that a Western comic is actually manga seems wrong and misleading.

Couldn't this be taken to be a little insulting though? Say a western and a Japanese artist are both inspired by the same manga, and go off and draw their own manga. Now, one has created a "real" manga, but the other is simply "manga influenced". Harsh...

OK - here's an example of what I mean. One of Gorillaz latest music videos is heavily influenced by Miyazaki's "Castle in the Sky"- but despite this influence, I don't consider it anime because it didn't come from Japan.

People are needlessly complicating the formula- if it isn't from Japan, it isn't manga. We are people living outside of Japan and so define the word "manga " as comics and graphic novels that are from Japan. It doesn't matter how manga is defined in Japan.

This is no slight on Western artists who hope to capture the essence the manga in their works. The funny thing is, authentic Japanese manga has no cliche art style or story telling techniques- when Western companies set out to capture the soul of manga, they are missing the point entirely- manga is an ever changing pot of artistic originality that rarely conforms to typical drawing styles- essentially, it's a broad term that covers all Japanese comic art and by setting out to replicate it's look, people are probably missing the point that manga is unique.

 

[Charter_Mage]

Thats a good question, i think if i think about it technically, and also if i was going to give a definition of it to someone, i would say Comics or Graphic novels created in Japan, by Japanese people. Though when i buy and read Manga i have no problem with buying Korean manga which when looking at my collection i would also call manga, even if by definition it isn't.
As for western produced manga, i will call it western manga, but i don't think in my head i will ever feel it to be actual manga, which is why i'm not usually inclined to buy it, because as Paul has said, it often seems to cliche in it's art style and story telling techniques, and i have to say that i think theres something quite different even down to the screen tones used, and where they are used

 

[Ramadahl]

You're entire argument hinges on the fact that you can:
a) define 'manga style'
b) assume that manga is no more than just its style

Yes, that's pretty much it. Thank you for the summary .

In reality manga is steeped in japanese cultural influences, created for a japanese audience <snip>

Well, you could well argue that, but in many manga these influences don't show up at all. Series like Monster or Saikano have fairly universal stories that stand alone from Japanese culture.

<snip> and is far more than a visual style.

Yes, I'd say there's a writing style as well.

Couldn't this be taken to be a little insulting though? Say a western and a Japanese artist are both inspired by the same manga, and go off and draw their own manga. Now, one has created a "real" manga, but the other is simply "manga influenced". Harsh...

You are assuming here that 'manga' is some kind of artistic supremacy. Or that imitation of the style is sufficient to produce the authentic product.

Hmm, I guess I didn't make this clear enough, sorry about that. I was trying to point out that calling something manga influenced seems to be to be synonymous with "tried to be a certain style, but couldn't quite make it". So that even if a western and Japanese artist drew the exact same series', one would be presented to be less than the other. This is one of my problems with restricting what I consider to be a style to coming from a certain place.

Or in another way, aren't the artists producing manga-influenced works really creating works that are a fusion of different styles & cultures? Aren't they entitled to their own label? For the moment OEL manga has to do.

I don't think that culture plays such a significant role, and surely they're using the same styles? And I agree that if they were using different styles they would be entitled to their own label.

There is something intangible about japanese comics that make them distinct to other nations comics. It is actually very difficult to define why this is so. Its certainly not stylistic, content wise or whatever.

Hmm, this seems vaguely similar to...

<snip> the soul of manga <snip>

Well, personally, I think that manga is nothing more than a style of art and writing - something so romantic about a work doesn't really appeal to me, but it's your call there, so I'll leave it at that.

People are needlessly complicating the formula- if it isn't from Japan, it isn't manga.

I don't think it's needless complication - the "formula" is overly simplistic. A few examples; a westerner produces a manga in Japan - does it count? or vice versa, a Japanese person produces a manga in the UK, for example. Or what if they people were born in one place, but have been living in the other for a long time?
Also, why should someone be considered unable to produce a work of art (sorta) depending on where they come from?

The funny thing is, authentic Japanese manga has no cliche art style or story telling techniques-

Sorry, I think that it certainly does have cliche art style and storytelling techniques. Admittedly, there is a large amount of variation across the spectrum, but that's perfectly normal for an art style. There are also storytelling techniques that frequently occur.

manga is an ever changing pot of artistic originality

I don't think this applies to anything, ever. Nice use of language, nonetheless.

that rarely conforms to typical drawing styles-

I would say that it conforms to it's own style, which is indeed separate from other, more tyical styles.

i think if i think about it technically, and also if i was going to give a definition of it to someone, i would say Comics or Graphic novels created in Japan, by Japanese people.

So would I, to be honest, because that's the safest definition. However, I still don't like it, as it seems somewhat flawed.

 

[Andy]

First off, I'd like to congratulate Ramadahl on what is quite possibly the largest post in the whole forum. Quite impressive

As for my own thoughts, I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the term "Amerimanga," often used to describe comics produced in America with manga-style artwork. Examples of this are the new line of Robotech comics, and some more recent Marvel outings. There's also "webmanga," which are essentially webcomics with the art stylings of manga.

I can't say I particularly dislike this approach, as some of my favourite webcomics are drawn with heavy manga influences. I suppose that I prefer it if an artist takes elements of the style, and then makes it their own (ie Megatokyo), rather than just ripping off design work.

Similar parallels can be seen in cartoons as well. Elements of Dexter's Lab and the entirety of Powerpuff Girls were clearly homages to anime, while others such as Teen Titans quite blatantly ripped off the style just because it's in. I think it depends entirely on the work itself, and how its presented. In some cases I don't mind it, but with others it's too obvious and takes the focus away from the rest of the work.

 

[Neon-Noir]

Regardless of the ephemeral tags distributors will place on both what comes from Japan and what does not, I think the issue at the heart of all this (for me anyway) is: will it decide whether or not you buy the non-Japanese produced work and, more importantly, think of it in the same way as the authentic Japanese produced texts?

Personally, it’s a “noâ€

 

[Laughing Manji]

You're entire argument hinges on the fact that you can:
a) define 'manga style'
b) assume that manga is no more than just its style

Yes, that's pretty much it. Thank you for the summary .

And my point is that those assumptions are invalid. There is an
element in manga where artists are expected to evolve their
own style, break new ground, do their own thign and even challenge
or break their own style.

And to state that manga is defined by no more than just its style
is doing it a disservice. You can't even use 'style' in the singular
when talking about manga.

In reality manga is steeped in japanese cultural influences, created for a japanese audience <snip>

Well, you could well argue that, but in many manga these influences don't show up at all. Series like Monster or Saikano have fairly universal stories that stand alone from Japanese culture.

In the titles that are deliberately neutral about it. Try saying the same about sports manga, which is almost a physical manifestation of many japanese values.

This is one of my problems with restricting what I consider to be a style to coming from a certain place.

Which is why I am at pains to point out that style is not everything when it comes to manga.

I don't think that culture plays such a significant role, and surely they're using the same styles?

I don't think a western artist could faithfully produce an original japanese teen romance series. Those titles and many others embody values and quirks that are purely japanese. The same with sports titles.

Well, personally, I think that manga is nothing more than a style of art and writing - something so romantic about a work doesn't really appeal to me, but it's your call there, so I'll leave it at that.

I don't think there is anything romantic about it at all (snipping the third quote here, you may have been referring to that, but you associated my quote with it). Japanese comics are very obviously different to the western work that is influenced by it. The differences are in the bone so to speak. Western work that starts using sweat drops, chibi characters, comically deformed characters, starts playing with the frame structure and imitating some character designs, isn't manga. Its just english work that is influenced by certain obvious style that are prevalent in manga.

I don't think it's needless complication - the "formula" is overly simplistic.
Also, why should someone be considered unable to produce a work of art (sorta) depending on where they come from?

Because no other definition is so widely applicable. If you start trying to define manga by the styles it contains, when japanese manga itself can be very style adverse in the first place, your definition is going to fall apart. You are going to have very unsatisfactory things like Akira being classed as non-manga because the characters eyes are naturally proportioned (when manga generally uses exagerated proportions). The size and breath of manga, and the fact that it is mass market, means that nearly every kind of style is represented, including styles more typically associated with western works.

Japanese comics is huge on a worldwide scale, not just a japanese one. It is worth its own label. Any definition that can't be applied to japanese comics is unsatisfactory. And that includes anything that is style or structure or narrative based. The only definition of manga that fits the full spread of japanese comics, is manga = japanese comics. Defining manga this way is about finding a definition that fits its not about artistic bigotry.

Pedantic arguments like: 'if a japanese manga-ka with an american parent is composing manga on an international flight - does that make it manga?' really don't serve any purpose. Nobody said it was a perfect definition. But it is the one that is *most* satisfactory.

'manga' isn't a club for the cool kids. manga = japanese comics is a definition coined by english speakers (and I guess other nationalities use it too) because they consider it distinct to western comics. The distinction is so pronounced in most cases that there are many manga fans who are not a fan of western comics/graphic novels (and vice versa). A style based definition doesn't cut it. You can tease out common patterns, but for every one that exists you will find 50 titles that are exceptions to it.

There is genuine resistance to the redefinition of the term manga now that most fans are pretty happy with it. Resistance increases when this is done for commercial purposes. Bear in mind that most of us have to put up with manga = japanimation or manga = japanese animated tentacle pr0n or something.

 

[mikeormy]

We could put an essay together on all of this long posting, this subject really does throw up some good question, but I'm not going to answer them.

 

[Paul]

Incidently-- take a look at this news story:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=8622

I've quoted an important part:

The first manga titles produced by the partnership will be based on Meg Cabot’s bestselling young adult novels. TOKYOPOP writers and artists, working closely with Cabot and her HarperCollins editor, will convert her multimillion copy selling books into manga format. The Meg Cabot manga titles will be published along with other manga titles based on key middle grade and young adult franchises from the HarperCollins list.

As a manga fan, I have zero interest in what Tokyopop are trying to push onto us here. There is something odd about them claiming to be producing manga when all they are really trying to do is cash in on a currently "hip" phrase. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of this HarperCollins-TokyoPop stuff is automatically rubbish but still I can't recognise any of what they are trying to do here as manga.

 

[mikeormy]

I don't like the fact they say 'origional manga', very misleading and very wrong.

 

[Ramadahl]

You're entire argument hinges on the fact that you can:
a) define 'manga style'
b) assume that manga is no more than just its style

Yes, that's pretty much it. Thank you for the summary .

And my point is that those assumptions are invalid. There is an
element in manga where artists are expected to evolve their
own style, break new ground, do their own thign and even challenge
or break their own style.

As to "evolving their own style", etc. you could argue that to an extent for all arts - manga isn't unique in this respect.

Try saying the same about sports manga, which is almost a physical manifestation of many japanese values.

I'll take your word for that. I was just pointing out that not all manga is "steeped in Japanese cultural influences".

And to state that manga is defined by no more than just its style
is doing it a disservice.

Which is why I am at pains to point out that style is not everything when it comes to manga.

Yeah, I see that this is your point, but I don't see where you've actually said what manga is beyond it's style, which is why I referred to it as romantic - as in, "there's just something about it".

You can't even use 'style' in the singular when talking about manga.

If you start trying to define manga by the styles it contains, when japanese manga itself can be very style adverse in the first place, your definition is going to fall apart. You are going to have very unsatisfactory things like Akira being classed as non-manga because the characters eyes are naturally proportioned...

Yep, this is the main problem of my approach - the "problematic" example I was thinking of was Blade of the Immortal. But even these share some of the same distinguishing characteristics, so while a style-based definition would be very broard, and there would be "borderline" cases, I don't see how that is much different from a more classical art style such as art Nouvaeu.

I don't think a western artist could faithfully produce an original japanese teen romance series.

Uh... I would say they could produce an original manga teen romance series that would be indistinguishable from a Japanese one. Admittedly, they'll probably have less bckground knowledge, and less incentive to do so, making it less likely to actually happen, but I don't see any reason why it could never happen. After all, if a thousand monkeys... (you know how it goes) :roll:.

Defining manga this way is about finding a definition that fits its not about artistic bigotry.

What, so we either get a bigoted definition or a racist one, huh? :|

Pedantic arguments like: 'if a japanese manga-ka with an american parent is composing manga on an international flight - does that make it manga?' really don't serve any purpose. Nobody said it was a perfect definition. But it is the one that is *most* satisfactory.

If it's not a perfect definition, I can always try to make a better one. That's where these pedantic arguements come in - if one definition can answer them but the other can't, then the definition that can is the more useful one.

Bear in mind that most of us have to put up with manga = japanimation or manga = japanese animated tentacle pr0n or something.

Well, yes, likewise, except they thought it was porn, rather than pr0n :mrgreen:

Incidently-- take a look at this news story:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=8622

Good point made, there. Moneymakers jumping on a bandwagon can't be called manga by yuor definition, but would be manga (assuming Tokyopop do it in their usual style) by mine.
However, if you just came across it in a shop without knowing any of the story behind it, I wonder if you'd be able to tell that it wasn't totally Japanese?

 

[Martin]

I don't like the fact they say 'origional manga', very misleading and very wrong.

That's my problem with the mislabelling of non-Japanese graphic novels as manga, my only problem with it in fact. I still think the 'Champagne' analogy is a good one - the reason why sparkling white wine from Australia, Bulgaria, wherever isn't champagne is because of where it's made, not the nature of the product itself. The name refers to geography, not product quality per se.

Passing off non-Japanese graphic novels as manga is not an unfair assessment of the artists' talent or anything like that, it's merely mislabelling a product. Tokyopop know the score as well as anyone, so they really ought to know better than to do this.

@Ramadahl and Laughing Manji: You both have raised some really interesting points there. That was great to read, thanks! I'll have another think about that later...

 

[Laughing Manji]

As to "evolving their own style", etc. you could argue that to an extent for all arts - manga isn't unique in this respect.

The point I am making is that manga is not *a* style. There are so many styles within manga, many quite different to each other, and many very similar to western material that defining manga as being comics that possess a certain style is just plain wrong.

Which is why I am at pains to point out that style is not everything when it comes to manga.

Yeah, I see that this is your point, but I don't see where you've actually said what manga is beyond it's style, which is why I referred to it as romantic - as in, "there's just something about it".

You are misattributing the comment. My observation of the differences between western comics and japanese comics is that when you put a representative sample of each side by side, there is something that is quite different to japanese comics versus western comics; and that is is really hard to define precisely why

I don't think that you can define it by style at all. I don't think that a definition of manga as 'comics that feaure characters that look like the Sohma family from Fruits Basket ' is useful - suddenly Akira stops being manga. I don't think that a definition that defines manga as 'comics that use irregular frame structure and flow to lead the eye, as a storytelling aid' suddenly Azumanga Daioh stops being manga. I don't think a definition of manga as 'comics that use chibi/super deformed characters' is useful either, Blade of the Immortal stops being manga and suddenly Peanuts starts being manga.

You can't base a definition of something from commonly observed characterstics. Hell, you would have to do a complete taxonomy of the entire catalog of published works in order to pull it off. And your definitions of manga would still be blurry and useless.

The definition of manga = japanese comics is a successful one. Its the only thing that can be applied evenly and unambiguously. Its a useful definition as there are many people who will enjoy manga exclusively or not appreciate it at all, and it is a concrete distinction that is easy to apply.

Nobody likes people talking about X-men in a favourite manga thread, and X men fans would probably ban someone for trolling if they started talking about Cyborg 009 on an X-men fansite.

The distinction is carrying over to other languages too. I believe the French use 'manga' to describe japanese comics too. With some debate as to the masculinity/femininity of the word.

I don't think it is possible to define japanese comics by some kind of common style, technique or structure based definition. They will generate ridiculous exceptions, or a definition that is unworkable and useless.

I do believe that generalising is possible, which is what is currently in use today. Manga = japanese comics. Its a very useful and successful generalisation and there is huge momentum behind it.

Why change the definition? The only pressing forces for revising the definition are commercial ones. Publishers (notably Tokyopop) want to call their in-house properties manga so they can use manga as a kind of brand. Western artists want to call their work manga to get more attention for it. The argument is independent of whether the work is any good, but there is a suspicion here of 'mutton dressed as lamb' so to speak.

This may become more pronounced over time. The act of licensing manga acts as a quality filter in our favour. Emerging/developing western artists are going to have their work compared directly with the best of experienced, established japanese artists. A more honest approach of acknowledging their manga influences would probably be a lot better than trying to pass themselves off as manga. If they develop their own brand identity it may see the start of a mass market comics industry in the west, its own fanbases and better recognition for the quality titles.

Basically try and find a better, more useful or accurate definition of manga than manga = japanese comics. I don't think you will. I have pretty much deconstructed your manga = specific style definition.

Perhaps if you give real world examples or reasons for why you want to broaden the term of manga to include works not originally from Japan.

 

[Ramadahl]

Hmm, let me see; you don't think it's possible to give a definition without either eliminating some current series, thus being too restricting, or without being so general as to be useless. But I'm getting an odd dichotomy here...

My observation of the differences between western comics and japanese comics is that when you put a representative sample of each side by side, there is something that is quite different to japanese comics versus western comics

So, according to this, it would be possible to get the definition I'm looking for - after all, if you can distinguish the difference simply by looking, then there must be a visible component(s) that differentiates all manga from western comics. This, then, could be the basis for a manga style definiton.

and that is is really hard to define precisely why

Maybe I can help you here :wink:. You get the data through your eyes, wand it is sent to your brain. So, if you can tell the difference, it's either your eyes picking it up, in which case it'll be a style difference (as we're comparing art), or your brain, in which case it'll probably be due to preconcieved notions. I can't think of any other options, unless you're eating the comics :? . Hope I helped...

Back to the style point... you mentioned things like chibi characters and frame structure in your post, saying, as far as I could tell, that using these as a basis for an overall style would eliminate a massive proportion of manga. I think that's correct - but I never said these were the style of manga. I would say that they are various components that pertain to manga style, but are not the whole style in themselves. It is perfectly acceptable to have styles within styles, of course.

You can't base a definition of something from commonly observed characterstics.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but that's where definitions come from. We make guidelines based on what we observe. And when we observe new things, the guidelines change.

The definition of manga = japanese comics is a successful one. Its the only thing that can be applied evenly and unambiguously.

Except the whole ambiguity of how Japanese it has to be to count, as mentioned before.

The distinction is carrying over to other languages too. I believe the French use 'manga' to describe japanese comics too. With some debate as to the masculinity/femininity of the word.

Yep, that's what some friends of mine in France say. I'd be surprised if it hadn't spread more than that.

Why change the definition?

Why indeed. After all, it's always easier not to change. Well, I've mentioned the ambiguity problems with it, and I'm not bothered about Tokyopop reasons. How about stigma then - the main audience of such OEL manga is presumably going to be manga fans. But rightly or wrongly, OEL manga seems to have picked up somewhat of a stigma, being often thought of as cheap, sub-par copies. Such prejudice can make it hard for these new western manga authors to be taken seriously from the outset. If there was no separate label, their works would be judged under their own merits, which seems a much better way of working in this instance. You could say that this is partly a reaction towards elitism.

A more honest approach of acknowledging their manga influences would probably be a lot better than trying to pass themselves off as manga. If they develop their own brand identity it may see the start of a mass market comics industry in the west, its own fanbases and better recognition for the quality titles.

Hmm, I'm still not quite seeing this. Why should they be forced to start their own brand?

Just a quick point - don't be put out by my using the word style. it's not supposed to appear as a strict set of rules and regulations, it's just a term used when analysing or comparing art. And, at the end of the day, manga is an art form like any other.

 

[Laughing Manji]

Hmm, let me see; you don't think it's possible to give a definition without either eliminating some current series, thus being too restricting, or without being so general as to be useless. But I'm getting an odd dichotomy here...

My observation of the differences between western comics and japanese comics is that when you put a representative sample of each side by side, there is something that is quite different to japanese comics versus western comics

So, according to this, it would be possible to get the definition I'm looking for - after all, if you can distinguish the difference simply by looking, then there must be a visible component(s) that differentiates all manga from western comics. This, then, could be the basis for a manga style definiton.

Your (counter)argument is full of holes.
*I have already said that there are mutltiple styles used in manga - that is pretty obvious from anyone who has read either Akira or something like Chobits. You still insist that manga = 1 style. I am using the commonly accepted usage of style (artistic) which is quite a high resolution:
"The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era."

*To use a different example, and your counterargument, there are obvious differnences between a German person and a Vietnamese person to a casual observer. Manner of speech, ethnicity, behaviour, culture, religion(s), language(s), beliefs and values etc. By your argument you would be able to define what makes a person German and what makes a person Vietnamese. That is simply not going to happen. We can generalise but cannot define. The only definitions that are unambiguous are 'place of birth' or 'nationality'. These are useful definitions when getting a passport, travelling etc. But they are unsatisfying when it comes to representing the broad sweep of how a people identify themselves, but they are practical (in terms of legality, economics and other things that require unambiguous definitions). Apologies to German and Vietnamese people who may have been upset by my use of concrete examples.

and that is is really hard to define precisely why

Maybe I can help you here :wink:. You get the data through your eyes, wand it is sent to your brain. <inane, stupid, and needlessly offensive further explanation snipped>

You are starting to be a dick about this. So this response is going to be the last I say on the subject.

I have pretty much deconstructed every argument you have thrown up, and not once have you even *attempted* to define a style that describes all of the characteristics of your concept of manga. I have thrown up more examples of manga styles and characteristics in my counter-arguments than you have ever posited in the first place, and you are the one trying to describe manga as a style. Your insistence that manga is only a singular style, and primarily one that you can see, discounts the fact that there are many aspects of manga that are obvious but not visible. It discounts the many philosophies behind its creation, its heritage and artistic movements and in many ways how the way manga is produced. All of these influence the final product that contribute to the distinctness of manga.

More importantly, the driving force behind your argument is so that non-japanese comics, primarily influenced by manga can legitimately call themselves manga. Yet you fail to provide any example of work that you feel warrants it. (My argument is manga is Japanese comics, but certain other works may be worthy of mention).

I will comment on a few more points here and be done with this.

It is perfectly acceptable to have styles within styles, of course.

I am using the dictionary definition of style. If you consider manga 'style' to be the set of all common characteristics of everything comic published in japan to date, start documenting them, and don't skip anything to make your argument fit. You will end up with silly stuff like 'manga style is defined by black and white comics featuring androgynous, elegant characters with exageratted eyes, hair and also comics with super-real character designs, often inelegant or ugly and also comically deformed characters ... then go into background visual style, creative emphasis, frame layout etc. etc.'. I *know* that you can't define them that way, but this is your argument and you are not even putting forward candidates for what it might be.

You can't base a definition of something from commonly observed characterstics.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but that's where definitions come from. We make guidelines based on what we observe. And when we observe new things, the guidelines change.

No we make generalisations based on what we observe, we make definitions based on the fundamental truth of something. Hopefully we can arrive at a definition, given generalisations of something, but it is exceptions to the generalisations that usually ruin the attempt. The main characteristic of a definition is that it is universally applicable to it's instances. Yet it is not always possible to arrive at a definition.

The definition of manga = japanese comics is a successful one. Its the only thing that can be applied evenly and unambiguously.

Except the whole ambiguity of how Japanese it has to be to count, as mentioned before.

You are the only one finding it ambiguous. Japanese comics. Originally published in Japan? Nothing ambiguous there at all. You haven't provided any examples of non-japanese work which is ambiguously japanese in a way to be considered for inclusion.

Why change the definition?

How about stigma then - the main audience of such OEL manga is presumably going to be manga fans. But rightly or wrongly, OEL manga seems to have picked up somewhat of a stigma, being often thought of as cheap, sub-par copies.

Have you thought that perhaps the stigma is warranted? I am going to be heavily critical here (possibly cruel), but how many of the OEL titles stand up well to comparison with the established manga titles? As an absolute number, or a percentage of the total work? I suspect the best will give something mediocre like Najica Blitz Tactics a run for its money, but how do they stack up against Blade of the Immortal, Tokyo Babylon, Nausicaa, Appleseed, Maison Ikkoku, Naruto or Nodame Cantabile? Perhaps the perception that they are inferior is based on the fact that they actually are inferior to the established japanese works? That's important when you are trying to enter a fanbase.

It's certainly 'cheap' in the sense that it is cheaper to produce and license than anything they have to source from publishing giants like Shueisha, Kodansha etc. It also costs the same to buy as a consumer. Even mangaka get slowly introduced, often through the doushin world, but usually serialisation in an anthology. In both cases their work is practically being given away for free to gain attention and build interest.

Methinx that if tokyopop wanted to introduce the OEL manga market better they should have built it up, developed the talent, possibly establishing an anthology. Rather than expecting people to choose between it and other titles with established fandoms and known quality. The large OEL Manga catalog they developed smacks of scattergun approaches. But the scattergun seems to be applied to a lot of other areas in the manga catalogs too (like every *yaoi* title getting licensed).

Such prejudice can make it hard for these new western manga authors to be taken seriously from the outset. If there was no separate label, their works would be judged under their own merits, which seems a much better way of working in this instance. You could say that this is partly a reaction towards elitism.

Its not prejudice. Nobody is taken seriously from the outset. You have to prove it. If there was no separate label the work would be judged and compared against CLAMP, Masumune Shirow, Rumiko Takahashi, Hiroaki Samura etc. Regardless of how much potential the OEL artists have they are ten years too early for that. There is no way that the enthusiastic beginners of the OEL world have a chance against the best of the best of the largest comic industry in the world. At least the separation of it into a seperate category allows it the chance of developing its own fandom.

The OEL industry is attempting to sell to manga fans. They are not attempting to sell to totally new fans that otherwise don't read comics or manga (in say the way that the web comics do) so they should at least acknowledge those (potential) fans properly.

So basically they shouldn't
- stealthily pretend to be manga
- tell all of the established fanbase that they are in fact wrong and that japanese comics can be duplicated anywhere
- expect that the new artists be treated with the same respect as the established ones automatically

This isn't elitism; this is common sense. Do OEL manga artists claim to be producing manga? Or do they claim to be producing manga-like work, designed to appeal to western manga fans? I believe most of them, like their japanese counterparts, are realistically modest, acknowledge their influences and hope you like/buy their work. I don't think any of them directly claim to be producing manga, but a western equivalent. The booming manga industry in the english speaking world has given them opportunities to express themselves that would be closed to them in the existing graphic novels world.

Hmm, I'm still not quite seeing this. Why should they be forced to start their own brand?

For their own good, it makes sense to develop independently and avoid direct comparison. So that they can attract their own audience, mature seperately and develop their own fandom. Its going to be punishing for them to be compared directly to the best manga. They have an opportunity to publish work that appeals to a very experimental manga fan community but can imbued with humour, cultural values and story styles that appeal to us.

 

[Ramadahl]

You are starting to be a dick about this. So this response is going to be the last I say on the subject.

Hmm, sorry, didn't mean to offend. Incidentaly I was just pointing out that if you can tell the difference just by looking, then the difference is either something you see or something you think you see. I really couldn't find any other alternatives.

I have already said that there are mutltiple styles used in manga - that is pretty obvious from anyone who has read either Akira or something like Chobits.

Well, I've seen them at least, even if I haven't read them all the way through. And while it's fair enough to say they're different styles if you want, I'd still say they fall under "manga style".
Oh, and while it's a good example you give, comparing to different nationalities, it is sorta redundant as manga, is something done once, whereupon it is static, whereas people are constantly changing.

I have pretty much deconstructed every argument you have thrown up, and not once have you even *attempted* to define a style that describes all of the characteristics of your concept of manga.

Good, I've been waiting for you to bring up this point. I haven't done this, for the simple reason I don't know enough about art to do so. I am simply saying that I think it can be done, and neither of us can prove or disprove it.

It discounts the many philosophies behind its creation, its heritage and artistic movements and in many ways how the way manga is produced.

I'm sorry, I don't see how these are important to the final product, however interesting they may be.

Yet you fail to provide any example of work that you feel warrants it.

No need to play favourites. I just don't like the way that a work will be automatically discounted without looking at the content.

You can't base a definition of something from commonly observed characterstics.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but that's where definitions come from. We make guidelines based on what we observe. And when we observe new things, the guidelines change.

No we make generalisations based on what we observe, we make definitions based on the fundamental truth of something. Hopefully we can arrive at a definition, given generalisations of something, but it is exceptions to the generalisations that usually ruin the attempt. The main characteristic of a definition is that it is universally applicable to it's instances. Yet it is not always possible to arrive at a definition.

Close. A definition is universal applicable to it's instances based on what we've seen so far. Fundamental truth? Nah, we haven't found any of that yet. Otherwise, how could definitions change?

Have you thought that perhaps the stigma is warranted?

Sure, it may be warranted, but we don't really know without testing it.

Its not prejudice. Nobody is taken seriously from the outset.

It's prejudice when they're discounted before the outset.

The OEL industry is attempting to sell to manga fans. They are not attempting to sell to totally new fans that otherwise don't read comics or manga (in say the way that the web comics do) so they should at least acknowledge those (potential) fans properly.

If they wanted to do that, why would they bother calling it manga in the first place? Likewise:

For their own good, it makes sense to develop independently and avoid direct comparison.

By referring to their work as manga in any sense, a direct comparison is something they chose.

I don't think any of them directly claim to be producing manga, but a western equivalent.

That seems to be speculation.

Ok, as I'm sorta tired, I'll try to sum all this up.
Firstly, I don't like the fact that someone outside of Japan will be unable to produce manga, but you're ok with that.
Secondly, I say manga can be defined by a certain style, whereas you say this isn't possible. Neither of us can prove either point.
Thirdly you seem to think manga is more than ink and paper (the history behind it, for example), whereas I don't. Both points of view are valid.
Fourthly, I say that creating another definition creates prejudice, you say they'll have to - indeed, they should - prove the quality of their work to overcome that prejudice.

I've probably missed quite a few points.
But regardless, I guess this discussion is over.

 

[Ramen89]

So many longs posts in a row :'( My mind hurts