Topics That Will Not Die: #1 - Manga
Dave
Intermittent continues to press his question about whether manga is
handled with kid gloves because kids read it. He adds an
interesting element to the issue, pointing out that American comics
were still the target for pointed criticism even back when they sold in
much higher numbers and were read by children:
At one point, superhero books sold better than
manga sells today; and during that time, their popularity did not
insulate them from fairly pungent criticism. There were some people who
argued that their popularity was in fact a disadvantage, since people
would look past good books on the assumption that all comics were was
four color beatdowns for kids. Too popular; go figure.
These remarks spurred a lot of thought on my part, so please bear with
me if I begin to stray from Dave's original starting point. (Or
in other words:
WARNING - LONG-ASS RAMBLING ENTRY AHEAD.)
First, I think the type of argument Dave is referencing here is
completely distinct from his earlier concern about bad manga being
immune to criticism. The argument that the popularity of
superhero comics is bad for comics overall doesn't necessarily entail
anything about the quality of specific superhero comics. Each and
every superhero comic book published could be an undisputed brilliant
work of art and one could still argue that the stranglehold of one
narrow type of comic on the medium is bad for the medium. The
argument that diversity of subject matter is important for comics is
logically distinct from issues of individual comics' quality.
It's a macro-level "emergent" argument that relies on the overwhelming
existence of one specific type of comic. If one type of manga
(say shoujo romance manga) comes to dominate comics in the future, a
similar argument could then be made that the prevalence of that genre
is bad for the respectability of comics.
It's difficult to say without knowing which particular arguments Dave
has in mind, but perhaps some versions of the "stranglehold" argument
supplemented that basic approach with the addition of Sturgeon's
Law: If all comics are superhero comics and 90% of anything is
crap, people will be more likely to come across crappy superhero comics
whenever someone tells them to try out comics. Thus, people will
come to associate comics with crappy superhero comics. This
strikes me as more of a psychological argument about how people form
classifications of things. It assumes that most people will fail
to distinguish between the potential of an art form and the particular
realizations of that art form. Nevertheless, I think the remedy
would be the same as for the above scenario: Diversity. A
wider-ranging line of subject matters in sequential art might make it
harder for people to lump all comics into one easily written-off
group: "Well, superhero comics still seem kind of lame to me, but
there sure are a lot of good horror comics out there."
Speaking of stereotypes, it's interesting to consider the general
conceptions that surround comics. Are they still thought of as
being kids' stuff? I guess that assumption still seems to pervade
most mainstream articles on comics (especially when they're trying to
counter that notion and they self-defeatingly title the article with something like "Zap! Bam! Pow! Comics Not Just For Kids Anymore!") This perception is generally attributed to the dominance of superheroes to the near exclusion of all else. Conversely, it seems to be part of the general
understanding of manga that it's not just for kids, at least not in its
homeland of Japan, where adults read manga unabashedly. (I'd also
add that my personal perception of European comics is that they're
targeted at all age groups. In fact, walking into most comic
stores or bookstore graphic novel sections in France, my impression was
that comics are primarily geared toward adults.) Unfortunately,
the stereotype of American superhero comics being for children doesn't
even carry the comfort of kids actually consuming such comics:
Most pundits agree that whoever is buying superhero comics these days,
it ain't kids for the most part.
So perhaps the excitement over manga's growing popularity does color
some commentators' critical faculties when it comes to manga:
After worrying so long about the declining sales of comic books (both
in general and specifically with respect to younger audiences), seeing
increasing
sales, largely to
children, may be causing some critics to turn
a blind eye to any shortcomings specific manga may have. On the
one hand, I can see why certain members of the comic community would
give more weight to sales than quality: Retailers and publishers
have reason, especially in such a soft economy, to be concerned
primarily with sales. (This isn't to say that sales is their
exclusive concern: Publishers and retailers may both have
motivations for promoting quality work, but I think the nature of each
business demands that they give greatest weight to economic
considerations.) On the other hand, sales can't excuse
everything: Just because something is popular (with any audience
segment) doesn't necessarily mean it's good. (Popularity doesn't
necessarily entail poor quality, either, a fallacy that seems more
pronounced with cynical/cranky critics.)
The question of whether the fact that kids read something changes the
standards of evaluation is an interesting one. I touched on this
briefly in
my
response to
Dave's
original entry, but now I realize there's much more to say about
this topic. If something is targeted for kids, shouldn't we judge
it according to that aim? After all, it's generally accepted that
one standard of fair criticism is to consider the goal of a work when
evaluating it. Taken literally, this principle has always
bothered me: How can I know what the artist's intent was in
crafting his work? How do I know what audience a work was really
aimed at? With
Shonen Jump we might point to the fact
that the magazine identifies its intended demographic in its very
title. For other, less precisely named works, one might attempt
to address such issues by focusing on their "effects": If a work
elicits a certain response or attracts a certain audience, then we can
assume that those were the intended effects. The problem with
such an approach is that it ignores the possibility of unintended
consequences. Was the original Star Wars movie really intended as
a work of myth, or did Lucas simply graft that language on after
critics such as
Joseph
Campell started analyzing the movie in those terms?
My own way of resolving this tension has been to approach reviews from
a "charitable interpretation" standard: I may not have access to
an author's intent, but I certainly have access to my own imagination,
so I can attempt to construct scenarios under which a work
"works." Of course, this approach sounds great in theory, but it
runs into its own problems in practice, namely the limits of my charity
and interpretive abilities. My dislike of something may be so
strong that I may ignore charity
in order to go on the attack more fully and freely. In such
cases,
others may rightfully call me on my abusive lack of impartiality.
Or there may be an interpretation under which something "works" but I
may fail to consider it. In this case, others may rightly charge
that I've missed the point of the work. There's also the
practical difficulty of knowing how many possible interpretations one
must run through in order to be reasonably charitable. Even if I
could generate endless interpretations for a work, do I really want
to? How would I ever satisfactorily review even a single work in
such detail? Finally, there's the worry that one can be
too charitable.
A review probably isn't going to be of much use if it only offers
advice to the effect of "Some people may find this comic entertaining
to one degree or another, but other may not."
So how do I resolve all these tensions in my own reviewing? I
don't know if I ever do, at least not fully. I try to be aware of such concerns, but mainly at
the level of doing a "sanity check" on a review after I've written
it. Is it excessively uncharitable or unfair? Is it too
bland or boring? And to be completely honest, not all reviews
will be written with the same goal in mind. On occasion I may be
one of the first to review something, so I have to do a little more
work outlining what the comic is about. And if I like the book, a
degree of evangelism may enter the recommendation. Kind of
like
ADD
or
Shawn
Hoke and their reviews of
Palomar. Conversely, if I
think something is receiving undue praise, I may write a review slanted
more towards exposing the deficiencies of said work. I still try
to keep the reviews "honest"--I never want to boost or bash something
that I couldn't back up with genuine opinions I actually hold.
But I'll admit that my reviews can often be written in reaction to
factors other than just The Work Itself. Some might find this
distasteful, believing that criticism should be as entirely
objective. But I don't see how criticism can ever occur in a
vacuum. We all have beliefs and biases that impact our
opinions. I think the key thing, as Dave suggests, is to be as
upfront as possible about the factors influencing one's opinion.
Which leads quite naturally to wondering: OK, John, what factors
are influencing your opinions on manga?
One thing might be that, whereas Dave feels as though manga is getting
a free pass, I actually feel
the opposite way. Reading many message boards, it seems as though
most comic fans already dismiss all manga as crap. I'm sure
everyone's seen the threads where fanboys gripe that all manga contains
the same "big head, big hair, big eye" art. Over on his blog,
Dave
Lartigue offers a similar complaint, writing that "many many
manga that are brought to
America fall easily into three categories: books about schoolgirls and
their panties, books about giant robots, and books about schoolgirls
who pilot giant robots in their panties." He acknowledges that
this doesn't describe
all manga, but he feels that the good
stuff is
getting lost in the sheer amount of crap being brought over from Japan:
I realize there are many manga titles that aren't
schoolgirls and
robots and wacky Japanese "humor". My point is, you have to really
search to find them. Book and comic stores are simply unloading manga
on the public by the shovelful, and nobody I know has the time or
desire to sift through the crap and find the quality stuff. Until the
manga aficionados are willing to admit that there are good comics and
bad comics, and some are Japanese and some are American, their
arguments are going to be drowned out by the sound of a million otaku
happily kissing the ass of anything Japanese.
So maybe we already are at a point where manga is suffering from a
generalized "guilt by association": Because most of the manga the
casual observer sees seems to be crap, it's assumed that
all manga
is
crap.
To a certain extent, then, my own musings on manga may be seen as a
reaction to such animosity. But I still think my arguments have
a specific grounding beyond a desire to offer a contrarian
position. My own belief that manga isn't (necessarily) crap was
formed in much the same way as my belief that comics aren't
(necessarily) crap: It's much too sweeping of a statement.
I'm sure there are bad manga comics out there, just as I'm sure there
are bad superhero comics, bad autobiographical comics, bad "art"
comics, and all kinds of other bad comics out there. How can I be
so sure? Well, I've read bad comics in all those
categories. But I've also read good comics in all those
categories, too. I'm not sure how I'd break down the division of
Bad/Good, but 90/10 seems rather high (and simplistic) to me. I'd
rather focus on specific cases, and even then it can be hard to make a
blanket "good/bad" judgment. Most individual works have elements
of good and bad in them. I'm most interested in critics who can
address both aspects and everything in between. I've tried to do
that in my own reviews, whether I'm reviewing manga or American
comics. My review of
Gyo
#1, for example, was fairly critical even though I consider myself
a fan of Junji Ito's earlier horror manga. And if I ever get
around to writing reviews for
Berserk and later volumes of
Sanctuary
you'll get to see more of me being "negative" toward manga.
It's just that my negativity will be directed at
specific manga,
not manga in general.