UlasanAnime.com – The debate surrounding the definition of “manga” and its application to non-Japanese comics is a complex one, often mired in marketing strategies and a misunderstanding of cultural nuances.
The analogy is drawn to Champagne, which is exclusively French sparkling wine. However, if “manga” is simply the Japanese word for comics, then the argument for its exclusive Japanese origin loses some of its weight. The core issue lies in whether “manga” refers solely to comics originating from Japan or also encompasses comics drawn in a style commonly associated with Japanese comics.
This ambiguity leads to a semantic quagmire. In Japan, the term “manga” is frequently used interchangeably with “comics,” suggesting that the distinction is not as rigid as some proponents might believe. Artists like Adam Warren, who adopt a certain drawing style, do not seem to be overly concerned with such definitional disputes.
Ultimately, the author posits that the primary driver behind this debate is marketing. The way comics are labeled directly influences consumer purchasing decisions. While it’s acceptable to refer to artwork as “manga” or “manga-styled” as long as the intention is clear, it’s equally valid to simply call it “comics” if that’s what it is, especially when the creator is not Japanese.
The author highlights how words can acquire different meanings across languages and contexts. Applying the “manga” label to any comic that exhibits a particular style can be seen as akin to the French claiming exclusive rights to all sparkling wine, regardless of origin. This raises questions about internal consistency and the motivations behind such claims.
The piece then delves into the influence of Japanese culture and government on the perception of manga. The Japanese government, through initiatives like the International Manga Award, actively promotes “MANGA” in all caps, suggesting a strategic effort to leverage its soft power. This contrasts with the French government’s approach to protecting its alcohol brands, which is primarily driven by economic interests. Japan’s promotion of manga, however, is framed as a form of “government propaganda,” aimed at global cultural influence.
The author uses Dan Kim’s work as an example. While Kim himself might refer to his comic as “manga,” the author argues that it defies easy categorization due to its genre-blending nature. Labeling it simply as “manga” might mislead readers who are unfamiliar with Kim’s unique imaginative style, potentially leading to unmet expectations.
The central plea is for clarity and honesty in labeling. Whether it’s called manga, comics, cartoons, anime, or webcomics, the important aspect is to accurately represent the work. Unlike Western animation, comics today often shed the “for kids only” connotation, which is a positive development, provided it’s communicated effectively.
The article criticizes the marketing of Original English-language (OEL) manga that capitalizes on the “weeaboo” subculture. The author believes that creators should be judged on the merit of their work, not on a gimmick label like “manga.” The reliance on commercial and government entities for validation of creative work is also questioned, as there’s no ultimate authority to settle these definitional disputes.
The author concludes with a concise summary, urging readers to:
- Avoid citing the Japanese government to justify calling one’s work “manga.”
- Recognize that definitions of manga are fluid and contested, and personal definitions may also be unclear.
- Respect that words in Japanese can have different meanings and applications than in imported contexts, and this also applies to Japanese companies operating in English.
A postscript muses on the motivations of platforms like Pixiv, suggesting that their primary interest might be in user-friendly interfaces that encourage more submissions, leading to increased page views, users, and ultimately, revenue, rather than engaging in definitional debates.
You might also be interested in : Autumn 2013 Reflections and Notes
