Talk:History of manga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No One Piece?[edit]

I don't understand how One Piece isn't included in this article when it is the most successful manga in Japan, and has been breaking records. That has something to do with the history of manga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.175.95 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it might. If you can find reliably sourced and referenced citations connecting One Piece to the history of manga, please add them. But mere opinions about manga being successful aren't enough. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Influence[edit]

Did any Chinese visual arts influence Japan? After all, Japan adopted the Chinese imperial system, the writing system, and Zen Buddhism. Particularly, there is an image in the Journey to the West article that looks very much like a manga page. KyuuA4 08:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Image:Journey.jpg? I'm not sure. Could be. But I don't think it looks more like manga than other strips. Shinobu 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Can't make a determination with just one page. KyuuA4 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


of course it influenced Japanese visual arts. Even Hokusai, the man the word manga is associated with, was known in Japan as an expert of Chinese painting. China actually made a complete animated feature before Japan, look up Princess Iron Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.210.134 (talk • contribs)

Two Essential New References[edit]

Kern, Adam. (2006). Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyoshi of Edo Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN-10: 0674022661; ISBN-13: 978-0674022669.

Kern, Adam. (editor) (2007). Kibyoshi: The World’s First Comicbook? Symposium. International Journal of Comic Art, Volume 9, Number 1, Spring 2007, pages 1-486.

Timothy Perper 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated[edit]

This article has been updated with the contents of the history section of the Manga article. That section (in the Manga article) will now be turned into a summary of this page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Manga[edit]

What was the first manga? If anyone knows, we should add it. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Before World War II section covers this. There's not really any one manga which is considered the first, but there are several contributors to the evolution of manga discussed there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Western influences[edit]

I think this article fails to mention the early Western influences on manga, such as Tokyo Puck, and imported pre-WWII American comic strips. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. The article is not complete. As time permits, I will add more material to it (I wrote most, but not all, of the article). If you would like to add sourced and referenced material, that would be a big help. But, if you would, please do not add unsourced statements; they add nothing of any scholarly value to the article. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I might borrow Schodt's or Gravett's books from the library, when time permits. I just thought that was a significant part of manga history, which was completely ignored. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wikipedia article on manga goes through that period rather thoroughly: fr:Manga#De 1861 à 1931 . 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobae scrolls[edit]

Is the spelling not Toba scrolls, from the author Toba Sōjō? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I made the change. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B Class Review[edit]

Having read this article, I have to agree with Doceirias's upgrade of this article to B class, but am wondering: has it ever been considered to list the article for peer review/good article status? G.A.S 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, to my knowledge it has never been reviewed for GA status. It might be helpful to do that, but I have some reservations about it being GA. There's a lot left out of this article (I know because I wrote the first draft way back when.) One topic omitted is a more thorough coverage of pre-WW2 manga and its Tokugawa era predecessors. A good Wiki article on a closely related topic is Katsuji Matsumoto. Also omitted is a discussion of changes in manga aesthetics and stylistics. I've never listed an article for review, so if you want to, by all means, but please note my reservations. I also have much less time now to provide the kinds of details and references I know the article needs. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, this would be the prerogative of the main editors of the article (i.e. it is your right to do so). Good luck with the article. G.A.S 07:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this would pass GA. There are several aspects that lack focus and no examples of more modern stylization including those with color.陣内Jinnai 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Reads a bit imbalanced.[edit]

Is it just me or does this article read more like "gender in manga" and "shojo manga" than general manga history in the majority of it? It's like someone just pasted the whole shojo manga article into the middle of this one. These are good topics but maybe it should be cut down in favor of the development of the art form in its entirety in a historical narrative. In the shonen portion too, it seems to suffer from too much details about specific stories/characteristics of manga and not about a establishing the 'manga history' narrative. Chunky Peanut Butter.

--Vehgah (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

Their are manga clearly before the 18th century as far back as the 12th century historians have recognized artwork as manga.陣内Jinnai 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question of definition, I'd say, but if someone identifies them as manga, feel free to include them, preferably with sources. The Japanese term "manga" is actually rather broad, comparable to "cartoon" in English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added info and sources to back it up. Tried editing the lead so that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV since their are claims made to the disputed origins being 12th century. Wanted to make certain things look fine before I remove the tag.陣内Jinnai 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right-to-left reading...do you have a source noting it was from imported Chinese literature that was then copied by Japanese authors? If so can you list it? The source listed now I'll admit isn't a scholarly one so if you find a some historical research on it, i'll concede the point.陣内Jinnai 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source, but the Chinese writing system was apparently imported in the 4th century, and for several centuries, China was the main source for all cultural imports. The idea that these scrolls alone form the basis for the reading direction of manga seems rather far-fetched. With books and literature written right-to-left, it's a natural evolution to transfer to another medium. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, what is the source you have for that statement? There's no direct footnote, so it's unclear. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, it's from Deb Aoki. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a source, really, but the Japanese literature article mentions the deep impact that China has had on Japanese literature. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that Chinese had an impact, but the amount is debatable and until there is verifiable evidence to the contrary, her statement stands. However, I have added a dubious tag next to the ref as their is continuation about the statement.陣内Jinnai 20:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completeness[edit]

I'm not sure this article will ever achieve completeness :(

Compared to some section of the French manga A Class article. fr:Manga#Cr.C3.A9ation_des_mangas. There is meat to chew and someone like Rakuten Kitazawa is not even mentioned.

I think the period between 1860-70 to 1940 need to be covered. --KrebMarkt 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And the Western impact on the evolution of manga before WW2 starting with the Meiji restoration needs to be further covered. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In lack of better sources, it might be a good idea to start translating the French article. I think a lot of this early history is covered by Schodt and Gravett, by the way. If you know French, Thierry Groensteen's book seems good. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those book aren't cheaps.
The Brigitte Koyama-Richard is also an interesting pick but for +33 Euros :(
For free you have Short story of manga by du9 in French. du9 while is "non-pro", it's still a RS per recognition of the quality of their articles pedigree and its lead editor was a panelist in Angoulême International Comics Festival 2009 on a conference & debate on the state of the comics market in France ref. --KrebMarkt 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check libraries out.陣内Jinnai 21:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More reading[edit]

A long discussion on graphic novel between Matthias Wivel & Xavier Guilbert. Manga as graphic novel was discussed. To spare you a long long reading i quoted what i found interesting on manga here. --KrebMarkt 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interview of Frederich Shodt on ANN some interesting points. --KrebMarkt 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex with minors?[edit]

I just removed an edit, clearly made in good faith, that nonetheless added an error. The changed paragraph with the new material is here, where I used a strike through to mark the change I made.

With the relaxation of censorship in Japan after the early 1990s, a wide variety of explicitly drawn sexual themes appeared in manga intended for male readers that correspondingly occur in English translations.<ref name = "PCmono"/> These depictions range from mild partial nudity through implied and explicit sexual intercourse (including with minors involved) through bondage and [[sadomasochism]] (SM), [[zoophilia]] (bestiality), [[incest]], and [[rape]].<ref name="CCIES">Perper, Timothy and Martha Cornog 2003 "Sex, love, and women in Japanese comics." In Robert T. Francoeur and Raymond Noonan, editors. ''The Comprehensive International Encyclopedia of Sexuality.'' New York: Continuum. pages 663-671. Section 8D in http://kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/jp.php. Accessed 2007-12-28.</ref>

There are two reasons for the change. First, sex with minors may be depicted in some manga, but none is referenced in the Perper and Cornog paper cited. I know because I'm one of the authors of that paper. Second, the paragraph refers to sexually explicit material that "correspondingly" occurs in English translations, and to my knowledge, no pedophilic manga has been licensed for translation in the United States or England. (Nor will it be, given US laws.)

If someone editing this section wants to add comments about explicitly pedophilic manga, either in Japanese or English, then please add that material separately with separate sources provided. Such comments can't be tacked onto a reference to the paper Martha Cornog and I wrote, although that paper is a valid reference for the rest of the sentence. I would recommend, if I may, that the topic of pedophilic manga be treated historically in this article, because it is about the history of manga. I'd like to thank the editor for thinking of this change, but it was inaccurate as added.

Timothy Perper (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of U.S. licensed manga that have sex scenes involving minors, ranging from implied to explicit, although the current state of Anglophone scholarship hasn't caught up to this development. I am mostly aware of shoujo, josei and BL titles that do so, although I'm sure there are examples in shounen and seinen as well. I think it's a bit unreasonable to refer to such works as "pedophilic"; is a high-school romance marketed (at least in Japan) to teenagers with depictions of teenage sex "pedophilic"? - JRBrown (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I'm not discussing romance, but explicit sexual imagery involving visible genitalia with whole-body nudity, or, in older manga, genitalia that have been censored out with erasures but that nonetheless make the missing organs very obvious. The reason for that limitation is that the paragraph in question is talking about explicit sexual portrayals, and that is also what the addition referred to. The Anglophone literature on the sexuality in manga is not recent; an early example is a paper by Toren Smith (1991 Miso horny: Sex in Japanese Comics. The Comics Journal, Number 143, pp. 111-115). Other writers who have discussed sex in manga include Frederik Schodt and Paul Gravett. If you are familiar with what has been written about the subject in English, you know that anglophone scholarship has been dealing with the topic for some two decades. In fact, the paragraph we're discussing is itself about precisely the kind of non-pedophilic portrayals you mention -- and which the paper by Martha Cornog and myself also discusses. But pedophilia itself leads a different kettle of images, which are unlawful in the US and in the UK, as well as in Japan. So far as I know, no licensed manga in the US or in the UK contains explicit pedophilic depictions. Hence our paper is the wrong reference for the material added, and therefore I deleted it. If you have counterexamples, please do NOT cite them -- they may well be unlawful to publicize or distribute. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that maybe my "don't cite them" comment might puzzle people. "If I can't cite them," this person says, "how can I prove they exist?" Well, turns out that's easy.
In 2009, a man named Christopher Handley -- who had previously been arrested for possession of untranslated pedophilic manga -- was found guilty by a court in Iowa (details can be found at http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga). Of the "more than 1200 items" seized by the police, 7 -- seven -- were named in his trial and found legally obscene. The Anime News Network report says that "Each of these volumes of manga, according to court documents, contained minors engaged in sexual acts, sexual abuse on minors from adults, or minors engaged in bestiality." (Quotes from the ANN website.)
In brief, it can be proven that such manga exist by referring to court records. The court also determined that Handley specialized in collecting sexually explicit manga, but only 7 were determined by the court to involve minors. Although the Handley case attracted some media attention, it did not involve a major seizure of obscene material, and no suggestions were made that Handley was selling or distributing the material. So the case does not prove the existence of widespread importation of pedophilic manga, although it shows that such material does exist.
Timothy Perper (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not discussing romance, but explicit sexual imagery involving visible genitalia with whole-body nudity, or, in older manga, genitalia that have been censored out with erasures but that nonetheless make the missing organs very obvious."
But this exists: officially-licensed US manga that contains explicit images of minors (i.e., persons under 18) in sexual situations, that is widely and openly distributed; some recent examples were purchased from my local Borders, and all of the books I'm aware of can be bought through Amazon. The books in question are generally romances, and marketed as such, and the exact contents are not advertised (i.e., the books are not presented as pornography), but they nonetheless contain explicit sex scenes. (Again, I take issue to defining explicit teenage romances as as "pedophilic", for the above-stated reason.) And as far as I have seen, the existence of this material officially published in English has not been addressed by the Anglophone scholarship to any extent (there are occasional brief mentions of the issue, for example here). And just to be clear: drawn/painted sexual depictions of minors are not illegal in the US unless they are obscene. Unfortunately, it is not particularly easy to define what is or is not likely to be found obscene, so any such depiction is potentially guilty until proven innocent, but non-obscene cartoon sexual depictions of minors are legally protected speech. [Edit: if you still find the existence of such material improbable, as I do not care to attract the misguided harassment of moral guardians to the publishers in question, I think I am set up to receive email from other Wikipedians, and if you send me an address by which you can be reached, I can provide a few example titles.]- JRBrown (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hiding potential flamebait material
[Edit conflict] Thanks for the reply. Yes, of course sexual themes and content exists in manga. That was the point of the paragraph we're discussing. And that fact has been known for at least two decades in Anglophone scholarship. I tend to agree that there isn't enough scholarship in this area, and although I think that's true for manga and anime scholarship in general, I don't want to distract the discussion into another area. So let me stay with what seems to be your major point -- that sexual situations exist in manga with people under 18. Yes -- for example, in a great many romances, where girls and boys (and in BL manga, young men and young men) are shown with strong sexual feelings for each other that they enact in a variety of forms of behavior. If that's your only point, then you're repeating what the paragraph said, and knocking on an open door. In simple English, yeah, we know that -- and have for quite some time. If you're making a point beyond that, I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. It is equally well known in this area that sexual depictions of non-minors can (in the US) fall under speech protected by the First Amendment, but that isn't what this article is about -- it's about the history of manga, not about the First Amendment in the United States. I am guessing, however, that you are saying that at least some manga available at Borders and on Amazon.com contain sexually explicit images of nude people explicitly under the age of 18 who are explicitly drawn copulating or otherwise f--g each other's brains out. Maybe, but if you have any, I advise you to put them all in a plastic bag and dump them AS FAST AS YOU CAN because if your local district attorney finds out, you will be booked on some very serious felony charges. As Christopher Handley found out, there is no such thing as an "innocent" private collection of material showing minors engaged in "sexual acts," which here are defined by the police as nude genital activity. Pictures of someone kissing their girlfriend/boyfriend doesn't count, not in this arena. One last comment: above I said "explicitly under the age of 18." That is necessary, as far as I understand US law, and I am not offering legal advice, since I am not a lawyer. It isn't enough if someone "looks" young -- they must be identified unequivocally as a minor. The reason, I gather, is to prevent various well-intentioned but wrong-headed people from calling everything they don't like "pedophilia."
Do NOT send me any titles or images or any other information. If you do, I will report it to the police. DO NOT MESS AROUND WITH KIDDIE PORN.
Timothy Perper (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have once again made the connection that is one of my points, i.e., that sexual material involving drawings of minors is not automatically "kiddie porn"; not in the eyes of the law (in the US), and not in my personal opinion. In particular, I object strongly to your connection of material involving under-18 characters, originally intended for an under-18 audience (although usually marketed in the US as 18+ because of differences in cultural opinions on material appropriate for minors), as "pedophillic".
"One last comment: above I said "explicitly under the age of 18." That is necessary, as far as I understand US law, and I am not offering legal advice, since I am not a lawyer. It isn't enough if someone "looks" young -- they must be identified unequivocally as a minor."
In US law, as I understand it, it is not required that the characters be "identified unequivocally as a minor"; in fact, this was explicitly laid out by the judge in the course of the Handley case, that US law criminalizes drawn material with characters that only "appear to be" minors (if, and only if, it is obscene). The point of this, as far as I can tell, is specifically to cover works which use childlike characters but claim them to be over 18, or more or less the opposite of what you said.
Finally, I will not be disposing of my manga collection, thank you very much. If my "local district attorney" wants to bring a prosecution for obscenity against material published by some of the country's largest manga publishers and sold through major chain bookstores, they can go right ahead and try; I'll fight them every step of the way. And of course I will not send you any information that you do not specifically request, although I think that an academic exploration of the topic would be interesting, in terms of the changes made to the target audience, the ways in which materials containing this very sensitive topic are presented, and the fact that this material has so far not attracted public scrutiny; if I had more time and energy I might try it myself. - JRBrown (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You are systematically missing my point: depictions of sex in manga range through a wide variety of acts with different protagonists (as the paragraph said, and as Cornog's and my original paper documented, plus a number of other sources). For any of it to be pedophilic, it must meet certain legal and extra-legal criteria, and I don't know of any licensed manga that meets those criteria. You say such manga exist in licensed US translations; keep the titles to yourself. Don't offer to send people titles or images or anything else; it might be a felony for you to possess or distribute them if you are correct that the people depicted are under 18. But the crucial bottom line is this: no one cares if YOU think they're under 18. The only proof is if a court has determined that they are minors OR they are explicitly identified as 16 years old (say) in the text. Anything based on your opinions is, as we say on Wikipedia, either Original Research or Original Synthesis, and it's not acceptable in this article or elsewhere on Wiki. Another place you missed my point is that I didn't say your local DA would prosecute the US publisher -- I said YOU can be arrested for possession of obscene materials depicting minors. But I do not think this is going anywhere, so let us agree to drop the discussion here. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I am being unclear or if you are misunderstanding me, but I do understand your points; I just don't think they address my points. To recap, the paragraph of the article that was edited mentions (briefly) types of subject matter dealt with in manga available in English translation; there was an edit adding another type of subject matter; you (correctly) reverted it as not in the citation; and I attempted to point out that this material (explicit sexual depictions of explicitly underage characters) a) does currently exist in in English translation, b) but so far Anglophone scholarship has not addressed it, and (after your initial response) c) is not per se illegal in the US (at least until there has been a finding of obscenity). If you do not find these points to be relevant, then I apologize for wasting your time. And I never thought you said my "local DA would prosecute the US publisher"; publishers and retailers are relevant because the only part of the US law on the "obscene visual depiction of minors" to survive in court (so far) requires a demonstration of obscenity, and as the Miller test for obscenity requires a community standards test, the degree of open availability of the material in question is a significant part of the defense. - JRBrown (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's be civil here and stop with the threats. This isn't a forum so unless the legality here of sex with minors matters for the argument that was originally brought up, which I cannot see how it does, just drop that subject for the moment and get back to the original statement "I just removed an edit, clearly made in good faith, that nonetheless added an error. The changed paragraph with the new material is here, where I used a strike through to mark the change I made."

I happen to agree with the statement. The removal does not automatically state that underaged depictions did not occur nor does it say they did. It goes as far as the text goes and the rest, until verifiable evidence is shown should be left out and to the readers interpretation.陣内Jinnai 22:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make clear that at no point did I feel that Dr Perper was making any sort of threat, or that he was uncivil in any way, and if he feels threatened or offended by anything I said, I apologize most abjectly because it was not my intention to do so. - JRBrown (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's fine. However, the discussion was becoming more forumy that addressing the topic.陣内Jinnai 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 陣内Jinnai . I agree. Let us agree to the discussion drop. Timothy Perper (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on History of manga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of manga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with Manga page?[edit]

Is there any reason why "manga" and "history of manga" are two separate pages? Genuinely curious. ParXivalRPT (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_manga&oldid=1212886165"