There Are Four Lights

I found this great read on Spoonblog, “Manga & Reality“, by Paul Duffield, which mentions my interview for Skepticality. It talks about the troubles with defining what “manga” is. In my interview, I gave my standard definition—-a form of comic book which originated in Japan—-because in this context, as is usually the case in interviews, what I’m really being asked is to familiarise the average listener with what the manga industry is and generally what kind of products it produces. This is the practical definition of manga from a business perspective; what kind of product are you creating and what market is it geared towards?

His article makes a really nice analogy between the term manga and the term race, in reference to another Skepticality interview (which I just recently listened to after having read Paul’s post), episode #126 “Race and Reality”. There is no biological basis for the term race, as the interview with Guy P. Harrison discusses. Rather, it is a cultural term, which involves a great deal of subjectivity and a spectrum of characteristics. It’s fair to say the same for the term ‘manga’; it’s purpose is rooted more in culture than in the technical and artistic specifications of any individual publication.

I use the term manga to describe my work because I want to be clear about my intentions. In North America, there is a distinction between the comic book industry and the manga industry. The business of selling manga graphic novels is different than the business of selling comic books. This doesn’t mean that the two don’t ever mix, but I feel that the label is necessary when working to publish and market a series. I have referred to myself as a mangaka, manga artist, manga creator, etc., because I feel it communicates clearly what my intentions are in my work. However, I would also consider myself a comic book creator (who specialises in manga), but there is the reality that when I use that label alone, it doesn’t paint a clear picture of my work.

I do believe the label of manga is a reality of the business in North America. I also feel that I’m being honest and upfront about not only my business intentions, but my creative intentions as well. The reality is that there is a market of readers who have expectations from a series labelled as manga. I think these expectations are rooted in the aesthetics and storytelling of a series and not in the nationality of its creator. My intent is to create works that can fulfil these expectations, even though there is, admittedly, a spectrum of expected characteristics.

I want to hold my own work up to standard because I’ve seen some dishonesty or at least murkiness from North American creators who delve into manga–marketing a series as manga, to manga audiences, but then backing away into the “technically anything can be manga” argument when faced with criticism. My hope is that I never fall into this trap. I want to be honest in what I’m selling; be upfront with what it is…it’s manga, it’s manga inspired, it’s a hybrid, or it honestly has no intended label…but I don’t want to tell people my work is manga and then back-track. After all, I’m selling  a product.

All of these reasons are why I’ve had a problem with labels like “OEL manga” (Original English Language) or “Global manga”. These labels serve no useful purpose. They draw needless attention to the nationality of a series’ creator. I think it’s reasonable to say that there is a section of manga readers who only want to read manga that was created in Japan, by Japanese creators. In their case, the term “OEL” or “Global” serves as a warning to stay away. But I find it highly unlikely that there is a market of manga readers who only want to read manga from “OEL” or “Global” creators. If that were the case, these labels would make sense. Instead, I think they only serve to give the impression that manga created by Americans, Canadians, and Europeans are second class–and that they are second class because of the nationality of their creators.