From: jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:50:47 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: jingoro

In article <v=rjaq#@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.COM (Jun Kim) writes:
>
>> I am going to reiterate the point I made much earlier.  Manga is a term
>> used to describe all forms of sequential art. 
>
>This is true *only in Japan*.  In the rest of the world, "manga" refers
>specifically to *Japanese* sequential art.
>

I disagree.  The rest of the world is a big place, and not all of it
refers to sequential art as "comics"

>> That's why the working definition of "manga" and "comics" have made
>> themselves into an "eastern sequential art" and "western sequential
>> art". 
>
>By *whose* working definition -- besides yours -- does the word "comics"
>refer exclusively to western sequential art?  

I am referring to the people whose posts populate r.a.comics.  By their
posts, the group has effectively become a western sequential art
forum.  Now, I know the charter of r.a.c refers to sequential art,
but the one doesn't have to look far to see that there are many examples
of where intent and reality are two different things.  The intent
of r.a.comics as a forum for all kinds of sequential art has 
not become a reality, therefore, manga fans have been posting to 
r.a.anime for years. They get better responses in an animation group
than in a comic group.  Does that tell you something?  Whether or
not r.a.comics was intended to address manga issues, in reality,
it is very ineffective in doing so.  Hence my working definition
of "comics" having more of a western sequential art bent.  And if
you read my previous post, I did not intend "the word 'comics' [to]
refer exclusively to western sequential art".  I said that when I 
refer to comics, one would not normally use Japanese sequential art
as a prime example.  Once again, please be more careful when you 
attribute things to others, since you might not attribute them correctly.

>Manga are discussed in rec.arts.comics from time to time.  

I'd like to add that western comics have been discussed 
in alt.manga (only once or twice, but it is a young group).

[stuff deleted]
>
>This is an international net.  From the point of view of the vast majority
>of people on the net, "manga" refers only to one kind of comic book --
>namely the Japanese kind.  We have an existing hierarchy for comics, and
>since manga are a type of comics, the manga newsgroup belongs in the
>comics hierarchy.  Period.    
>
Oh, no! Not a period!  Doesn't that mean I can't write anymore? 
(Maybe you should have put:  Asterisk.  <--- that would have really drove the
point home, wouldn't you think?)  :)

Seriously though, given the fact that the effective association between
r.a.anime is closer to manga than r.a.comics is to manga hints to me that
generally speaking most people of r.a.comics are not interested in 
most of the issues concerning manga.  Effectively, the r.a.comics newsgroup
has very little to do with manga.  Why force the association?  There is
no dictionary definition for manga that I could find, so where do you
get the authority to decide what it means to the "vast majority of the net"?
If you don't agree with my point of view, that's allowed, but don't give me
all this about "since manga *is* this" or "since manga *is* that"
without, at the very least, qualifying your statements.  I'm no expert
and neither are you, but at least I'm not telling you how the world turns.
I was just trying to show you that there are different viewpoints to this,
and this being an international net, I thought that those kinds of
viewpoints should be considered.  But all I get is (basically) this
"Are you *nuts*?" argument from you.  I had a very pleasant e-mail
exchange from someone with a differring opinion than mine, and it was
quite pleasant (unlike this exchange).  I don't think we changed each
other's minds, but I think we knew where we were coming from.  If you're
not going to even try to do this, don't bother discussing it.  The point
is not to prove you are right, the point is to better understand the 
situation.  My point is (was) that the word "manga" has been misunderstood
by the general public so that the "working definition" of it is 
resistricted to "Far East" (I know it's not PC) comics when it shouldn't
be (under the initial definition of the word).  Also, I feel
the "working definition" (or rather effective definition) of comics
on the net (not in your friendly edition of Webster's) has cornered itself
on western comics.  For these reasons, I don't think that either has
a subset status toward the other.  Again, I know the charter for r.a.comics
but I feel that r.a.comics has strayed from that charter in the sense
that it is not a true forum for all sequential art.  Therefore, the
association between r.a.anime and manga is stronger than that of r.a.comics with
manga. 
 
Thus I reach my conclusion that the association of manga as a subset
of comics is incorrect. If you don't agree that's fine with me; state
your case and be done with it. Please don't change the meaning of my 
posts though, since that's not "nice".  And I would suggest to try
to see the other viewpoints (you don't have to agree with them) without
throwing it out just because they are different from yours.  If you are
seriously doing this, then this message is for naught.  That's all I want
you do to since I can't ask for more.  But don't ask me for more than that
also.


--
Jun Kim                                         jkim@jingoro.Eng.Sun.Com
Sun Microsystems
Mountain View, CA                               "Oboete imasu ka..."