What is Manga?

Ever since Tokyopop created their line of American created titles, dubbed OEL (Original English Language) manga, fans have been debating if they should be called manga.  What is manga?  Is it a style, or set of drawing conventions?  Is it a country/ethnic specific creation?  Or is just as the word translates to, funny pictures, or comics?

John Thomas: I'll start by saying I consider "manga" to be comics that come from Japan. I use the term "OEL manga" for comics that imitate Japanese tankoubon releases. Some call "manga" a "style" but I see manga as a medium. There is no singular manga or anime "style" unless you have only the most limited exposure to these media. I think what a lot of people leave out of their definition of manga is the culture-specific story lines and themes that can only come from Japanese natives. I am not into Japan because of manga, but into manga because of Japan. If that country-specific element isn't there, then it isn't manga to me.

Dan Polley: I tend to think of what "manga" is in more nebulous terms. To me, what differentiates American comics and Japanese comics are the artistic style and plot-driven storytelling.

I think a lot of American comics focuses on the characters, especially when you consider the superhero genre. Those aren't plot-driven; they're driven by the main character(s). In other words, manga has a story to tell; a lot of American comics have a character to tell.

I like what John says about culture-specific stories and themes, and I haven't really thought about that part of how culture affects how manga is perceived. But I think that's an interesting point to lend to the discussion.

JT: Thanks, Dan. I tend to find myself more into manga set in Japan than in fantasy places or different countries. However, I think culture really comes through in those types of manga like Fairy Tail or Gunsmith Cats, set out of Japan, and it probably more apparent to our Western sensibilities than even to a Japanese reader or even intended by the author.

Charles Tan: Wow, I thought this topic would be more "heated." Manga for me is comics, although there's a certain qualification there. It's certainly not "funny pictures" as not every comic (US or otherwise) or manga is funny. It's also not a genre as you have everything from science fiction to drama, as well as all sorts of age groups from the toddlers to lechery old men.

Does it have to have come from Japan? I'd like to think not necessarily, although of course there's much resistance to this phenomenon (and why OEL in the first place draws much ire). But riffing off John, a lot of Japanese manga is told from the perspective of the Japanese: Japanese protagonists, Japanese culture, Japanese ethics. Is this what attracts me to manga per se? Sometimes yes, sometimes not. It's honestly a case by case basis, in much the same way that not every manga is worth reading, or that every Western comic is unappealing.

I find it interesting that Dan Polley describes manga as plot-driven storytelling. A lot of superhero comics are actually plot driven and perhaps what turns off some people is the lack of characterization--at least that was the case in the 60's and 70's of comics where it was all about "catch the villain of the week." And manga has those plots as well, as well as lengthier ones which are more character-centric. Just look at Naoki Urusawa's recent work, whether it's Monster or Pluto. Why it takes so long to tell is because Urusawa explores the character. In fact, Pluto's plot isn't original nor should it be surprising. It's recycled after all from Astro Boy but what makes the series new and refreshing is the exploration of believable characters that was missing from the original. So I wouldn't describe the presence of plot--or the absence of it as the case may be--the selling factor of manga, but it does describe why individual titles might be appealing to you as a reader, just not the genre as a whole.

But if that's the case, what's so appealing about manga? I think it's about diversity. There's all sorts of stories being told in manga so each person can find their niche, whether it's plot-driven stories or character-driven stories. Or maybe because it's an alternative to what's mainstream or what's common. Variety's the spice of life. There's also a movement lately away from Western paradigms and culture, so that might be part of the appeal (and along with this is the rising interest in Korean and Chinese comics).

As far as definitions go of what is manga, the tricky thing about language is that, well, it varies from culture to culture. The term otaku for example might be a badge of honor in America but for the most part it's derogatory in Japan. In many ways, how the Japanese might define manga (which is plainly comics) might be different from how you and me might define what manga is. And this isn't a static phenomenon but fluid and dynamic. John for example might change his opinion five years from now. Or stick to it. We have a baseline concept of what manga is--those digest-sized volumes of black and white comics from Japan--but there's also lots of wiggle room from there, whether it's the form (single issues, large formats, color) or the content (who writes/draws/publishes it, the kind of stories inside, etc.).

JT: If we are going to call American comics by American artists "manga" then by the same logic we should be able to call them manhwa, or manhua, right? But nobody is clamoring for those titles. Why not? Manhwa and manhua are black and white...and at least manhwa is read left to right like most OEL manga. On this line of logic wouldn't "manhwa" make more sense than "manga". When we think about it like this the differences between manga and OEL manga become more obvious. I recently read Wolverine: Prodigal Son 1, and I didn't hate it, and I didn't love it, but one thing that bothered me was the author's declaration in the notes that the book was written in "Manga style". Those two words put together send goose pimples up my neck. What is "Manga [capitalized] style"? The book imitates a manga tankoubon format of being about 200 pages, black and white, and in a paperback novel-sized package, but other than that there is nothing about the book that screamed "manga" to me (besides the artist's love for speedlines). The story borrowed from many fundamental manga conventions (orphan without a history, angsty teenager with superpowers, dojo with whiskered sensei who has a daughter the same age as the lead) but just because I borrow from German noir when I make my movie doesn't make my movie German noir. Are these the things that make a manga a manga? To me I say the answer is "no".

Alex Hoffman: John has a good point, and one that I'd like to bring to the forefront of the discussion. We're asking what makes manga into manga. I'm going to go about this from a content standpoint, because that's what I think makes manga so special. First though, let me throw out some observations about format, and artistic choices that people commonly believe that make manga manga.

Manga is a black and white anthology format. - So is Box Office Poison by Alex Robinson, and Shortcomings by Adrian Tomine. American comics aren't exclusively black and white, but there are many out there that are.

Manga has the "big eyes small mouth" style. - If you think that this is the harrowing feature of manga, you can read Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life by Brian Lee O'Malley, Brian Wood's Demo, or even manga like Berserk by Kentarō Miura. Just because its manga doesn't mean it's got a specific style of illustration. So when people say that they drew their comic in "manga style", all that really means is that they have some preconceived notion as to what Americans expect manga to be, not necessarily what it is. This is the biggest divide, I think. Almost like a bias or prejudice, people look at manga as though it were punched out with cookie cutters, expecting the exact same things from hundreds to thousands of different artists.

There are many more stylistic choices I could talk about, but my point here is that manga isn't a format of comics based on how it was written. It's culture specific content that makes manga different from its American comics counterpart. We've seen Western writers and artists try to write comics that emulate manga, and it's had various degrees of success. We've even seen westerners write comics that focus on Japanese culture-centric topics, like Yokaiden. The problem is that no amount of research and drive is going to give your comic book the same feel as a Japanese manga.

So in some sense, I dislike the phrase "OEL manga" or "global manga" because it's not manga. They're comic books that are written in a specific format in an attempt to emulate one section of a large market of comics in Japan.

On a completely different note, I think I'd be much more forgiving of OEL manga if it wasn't so terrible. I have yet to come across an OEL title I truly enjoyed. It feels as if something is lost in their translation of one cultural medium to another.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Western comics. Too Cool To Be Forgotten, Watchmen, Y: The Last Man, Shortcomings, Exit Wounds, and Lucifer are all some of my favorite comics. But Western comics are necessarily different from manga, and in my opinion, that's a good thing. If you are going to write a comic book, why not just try and make it the best comic you can write? Don't try to imitate something that you aren't. Just be yourself.

JT: We are on very parallel trains of thought, Alex. For a long time I felt in the minority in feeling that the definition of manga is simply "comics from Japan", but maybe that isn't so. You even take it a step further than I do (in public, at least). I can accept the term "OEL manga" only for the reason it tells me "this is NOT a work from Japan", but technically I agree with your dismissal of the term altogether. Recently Mangablog maestro Brigid Alverson was lightly criticized for using the term "OEL" but I think it was an argument that flamed out before it was posted. I will not use the term "global manga" because 1) it implies manga is a global phenomenon, which I don't think it is and 2) it makes it sound more international and debonair that in always is.

Although I have been tricked into buying manga I thought was from Japan (and, yes,  that's how I felt about it when I found that "manga" was made the next state over) I have never been fooled. Although my definition of manga is bound in the cultural requirement, I have to use that term, I have yet to seen an American or European artist who could make me believe their work was drawn by a Japanese artist. But, at the same time, I haven't looked hard.

AH: One of the things that confuses me about OEL is the writer's insistence that the comic book they are writing must be a manga. I mean, for example. Svetlana Chmakova, has written non-OEL comics. Her work has been in anthologies like Flight, for instance. And it's good. And, realistically, her style isn't any more "manga" than Brian Lee O'Malley's. The difference is, Scott Pilgram's Precious Little Life isn't being marketed as manga, and Night School and Dramacon are both marketed as manga.

Why are OEL comic writers so wrapped up in trying to create a "manga"? It's just another comic book, in my mind, albeit one with cultural differences from western comics. For instance, Kasumi, is illustrated by Hirofumi Sugimoto, a Japanese artist and written by Surt Lim, a resident of the USA. Yet, when they wrote the comic designed for the OEL audience, they intentionally wrote it in the right to left format that most manga come in these days. What is it that you're trying to prove? Is it that you wrote a manga? Or are you afraid that your comic book isn't good enough without that manga title, that it needs that "manga" mindset in order to be read and accepted by comic lovers?

I think it comes down to this; OEL manga feels like a cop-out to me. If you write a comic book, and it's good, you shouldn't have to market it to the manga crowd to get it read. If it is good enough, people will read it. OEL feels like a specific marketing ploy to get people to purchase a comic book based on a set of standards they expect from real manga.

Lori Henderson:  You're right about one thing Alex, OEL Manga is a marketing term.  Tokyopop made it up to sell their originally written comics just so they wouldn't be put with the regular comics.  Why?  Simple.  Because girls are more likely to pick up a manga than a comic book.  I'm one of these relatively rare exceptions, but in general, girls don't go into comic book stores to buy comics/manga.  They go to the bookstore and if they saw "new comic from Svetlana Chmakova", and "new manga from Svetlana Chmakova", they would probably pick up the manga.  Marketing is all about perception, not content.  Because Tokyopop got it out first, and shouted the loudest, it's become the defacto term for domestic graphic novels in paperback size.

I'm with Dan on this though for a definition of manga.  The art and greater propensity for character stories do differentiate it from American comics.  You can write a manga with anyone as the protagonist, but a Superman or Spiderman comic can only be about them.  I don't think it's so much a style as more flexible content.  Manga doesn't have the baggage that comics do of being about superheroes and for kids.  Because it's new it can define itself anyway it wants, and doesn't want to be loaded down with older perceptions.  Because of that, I don't mind domestic graphic novels being called "manga".  It gives me an idea of what I can expect from the writer/artist, even if it isn't necessarily good.
 
Katherine Farmar: I'm coming late to this discussion because I recently wrote a paper on this topic for an academic conference and I didn't want to trample all over the other participants with footnotes and jargon, heh.
 
I'm in the "manga is comics from Japan" camp, and apart from agreeing on a gut level with John when he says "I have yet to see an American or European artist who could make me believe their work was drawn by a Japanese artist", and with Alex when he says "Western comics are necessarily different from manga, and in my opinion, that's a good thing", I also think we need to take economics into account. The structure of the Japanese manga publishing industry is radically different from the structure of the American comics industry. The assistant system, the thick weekly and monthly magazines, the close ties to the animation industry, the greater presence of manga in the wider culture -- these have all been hugely important in shaping what manga is and has been over the past 50+ years.
 
Charles said in relation to Naoki Urasawa's work, "Why it takes so long to tell is because Urusawa explores the character." Well, yes, from one point of view; but from another point of view it takes that long to tell the story because in Japan there are more outlets for long, multi-volume stories than for shorter ones. Or, to be a bit less crude about it: it's possible for Urasawa to tell his stories at such length because the outlets are there. Same goes for all Japanese mangaka: they do the work that the market can support. Meanwhile in the US you have the Wertham report, the collapse of newsstand distribution, the Direct Market, the dominance of the Big Two, the rise of self-publishing and small press in the 80s -- all of these being economic factors that have changed what comics content was able to find an audience in the US market.
 
I dislike it when people use the word "manga" for comics created in the US (or elsewhere) because it seems to imply that the style is the only thing that's important, and we can ignore the circumstances that produced the style. But artists don't operate in a vacuum. They're inspired and shaped by what surrounds them -- encouraged to move in some directions, discouraged from moving in others. That makes a difference to the work they produce.
 
But, that said, there's no doubt that style is important, and that the influence of Japanese comics on non-Japanese comics has been enormous and (in general) positive. So the question arises: if we're not going to call the very-heavily-manga-influenced work from outside Japan "manga", what do we call it? Paul Gravett has coined a term: "mangaïsme", analogous to the "Japonisme" of late 19th-century French artists who were influenced by Japanese painting. I like "mangaïsme" better than "OEL manga" or "global manga" or what-have-you because it makes it clear that this work is like manga without claiming that it's exactly the same thing.
 
And, what's more, I think it's entirely understandable that artists who love Japanese comics and don't have any particular feelings about comics from elsewhere (or maybe positively dislike them) would think of their own work as "manga", or would want to be thought of as creating manga rather than "comics" -- I know that the word "comics" represents an alien and unwelcoming tradition for at least one mangaïste artist (British artist Asia Alfasi has said pretty much that in different words). And I think a lot of the opposition to mangaïste work comes from a very dubious place -- a lot of Western fans idealise Japan in a creepy, fetishistic way that doesn't do Japanese artists any favours. (I'm sure they'd much rather people read their work because it's good than because it's Japanese...)
 
Alex says "I think I'd be much more forgiving of OEL manga if it wasn't so terrible. I have yet to come across an OEL title I truly enjoyed." Well, maybe you're looking in the wrong places? I've come across a lot -- just looking at Tokyopop's catalogue, there's Off*Beat, King City, Gyakushu!, East Coast Rising, Fool's Gold... okay, the first volume of Fool's Gold was pretty bad, but the second was terrific. The anthology series The Mammoth Book of Best New Manga is almost entirely non-Japanese, and while the quality is variable, when it's good it's amazing. I was instinctively against the anthology because it was calling itself "manga" while not actually including any work by Japanese artists -- yet it introduced me to the work of Neill Cameron, Niki Smith, Asia Alfasi, and Fehed Said and Shari Chankhamma, all of them utterly brilliant. And Rising Stars of Manga UK & Ireland introduced me to the divine Paul Duffield.
 
Mind you, those examples remind me of something else: there are a number of non-Japanese artists who have begun their careers calling their work "manga" and have later dropped that description. I find that very interesting. I think it's partly that they move to publishers that don't use "manga" as a marketing term, and partly that their styles evolve to better assimilate the Japanese influences, and thereby become less obviously manga-like. I find the work that really hybridizes Japanese influence to be a lot more interesting than the work that just copies.

JT: I kind of like "mangaïsme" (but don't ask me to pronounce it). I find it interesting that comic writers would have hang-ups about the term "comics" to the point they want to appropriate a Japanese term, but I do disagree that "comics" is strictly a super-hero genre. Some excellent horror books have come out recently, as well as very intelligent and moving titles like American Widow, Black Hole and Arab in America. Where I live, Portland, is a very comics town (the mayor declared April officially Comics Month for the second year in a row) and visiting the local indie comics convention, Stumptown Comics Fest two weekends ago, I could see there is a lot going on in American comics that has nothing to do with superheroes. No one could possibly be offended by "graphic novel" (right?) and "mangaïsme" feels to me like a compact way of saying "manga-influenced graphic novel".

LH: If you look at the history of the English language, it's filled with words appropriated from other languages.  We've taken otaku in the same way, and redefined it to mean something to us that's different from it's original.  Manga is going through the same thing, for good or for ill.  We have embraced manga and now want to make it into something of our own.  And to that, it really should not be continued to be called manga.  How about a compact way of saying "manga-influenced graphic novel"; MIG?

KF: "No one could possibly be offended by "graphic novel" (right?)" -- heh, you'd be surprised! "Offended" is maybe the wrong term, but there are artists who dislike it and come up with their own terms, like "illustrated novel" or "picture novella" or the like. Which just goes to show that no matter how careful you are, your comics-related terminology is never going to please everyone... so you might as well please yourself. And my way of pleasing myself is to call comics from Japan "manga" and comics from outside Japan that follow in the footsteps of Japanese artists "mangaïste". Other people's mileage is undoubtedly going to vary, but that's okay -- as long as we understand each other.

Lori Henderson