Originally Posted by moviegoddess
well..i read comic books and love comic book movies....but i read mangas as well...
mangas are not comic books, they are stories that have sometimes been pubished in a weekly "jump" [shonen jump, yen press] by chapters, not by strip.
Many major artists of the first post-war decade started as kamishibai-men (sort of half-way between chinese shadow puppet-theater and comics), or creating works for the Osaka-based "red-book" publishers that catered to commercial rental libraries (Kashibonya) before going on to publish in the Tokyo-based anthology publications that came to prominence in the 60s and thereafter. Shigeru Mizuki and Sampei Shirato are two of the more famous ones whose careers encompassed all three formats. I'm sure there are other formats that I don't know about.
I think we agree on a lot of things, such as an interest in being aware of the historical and cultural contexts of manga vs. western comics. But that doesn't invalidate formal definitions. By your logic Pickwick Papers isn't a novel because it was originally published chapter-by-chapter.
i dont know when the "beef" started between comic book fans and manga fans...but its as interesting as the trekies and star wars beefs..
Moreover, the biggest manga convention in Japan is named Comiket, which suggests that the two terms are fairly synonymous for Japanese fans (not to mention Japanese lay readers, which are far more numerous than in America).
I don't think anyone would argue that there are many traits which set manga apart from other comics, but the aesthetic and even professional boundaries can be very porous. Jiro Taniguchi has worked in the French industry (Icaro). Paul Pope worked for Kodansha as part of a professional exchange program well before manga had any sort of notable fandom in the US (by today's standards). Gary Panter's long running strip Dal Tokyo has been published exclusively in Riddim, a Japanese reggae magazine. These aren't the norm, and most of these aren't read by your typical manga fan or western comics fan, but to me that's just part of the argument for why fans don't have primacy when it comes to defining these terms historically or aesthetically.
the comic strips are published in american newspapers, and do come out in a coffee table book like boondocks, and peanuts.
the only difference a graphic novel is 300 is one, and some wolverine books, and starwars...i think it has to be a new story....when comic books are released in big books...we just call them "collectibles" and never open them????
My own definition of comics is very broad and informal: I include picture books (Dr. Seuss, In the Night Kitchen), one panel gag strips with or without words (Far Side), non-narrative strips that include a sequence as well as non-sequenced art that includes narrative. By my definition manga is Japanese comics so all manga are comics but not all comics are manga. Admittedly this definition is not air tight and leads to questions, such as how to define novels with a few illustrations (Alice in Wonderland, various works by Dickens, Woman in the Dunes). I don't necessarily have a problem with drawing a line, but given how interconnected a lot of work is aesthetically I don't see much use in being super strict about it. No definition for these things is going to be air tight.
Last edited by linespalsy; 03-28-11 at 07:06 PM.