From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.manga vs. rec.arts.comics.manga
Date: 16 Apr 1992 14:00:35 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <axolotl.703384820@syzygy> axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au writes:
>jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >Are
> >manga not stories told by a combination of words and (somewhat stylized) art,
> >where both components are essential to the story? If not, how? If so, they're
> >comics. 
>This is a pretty good description of everything from Renaissance paintings
>to Little Golden Books to cake mix instructions.  None of these are
>ever described as "comics".

Since when do Renaissance paintings have words?
Since when do cake mix instructions tell a story?

You're being deliberately obtuse, I fear.

>As I recently explained to someone, manga artists/writers no longer limit
>themselves to the "n panels per page" medium,  and they now find themselves
>as authors, illustrators, storyboarders, character designers, and directors,
>the manga "styles" now utilising any medium from graphic int-fiction to
>chip packets.

Tell that to the author of Garfield, as an example.
I think you'll find that "n panels per page" is not a necessary part of the
definition of comics, either.

>Since a discussion on a manga newsgroup would typically encompass
>illustration, mythology, packaging design, and computer graphics, could
>you fill us in on why it MUST be rec.arts.comics.manga?  Considering that
>a newsgroup so named refers to manga which have been adapted as comics,
>ie. an extremely small percentage of what is proposed for discussion in r.a.m.

No. You keep missing or ignoring the point: rec.arts.comics.manga refers to
that portion of the universe of comics that encompasses the style known as
manga. That sentence does not anywhere refer to comics in the narrow fashion
you keep insisting of redefining it as, either ("western" comics). Neither
your posting several days ago nor any of the other assertions in this group
have been anywhere close to convincing that there's a necessary difference
between manga and comics - as long as you properly define comics.

>I imagine the same mechanisms that stop soc.motss from heaving
>under "what's a motss?" will suffice.

But why adopt a name that makes such things necessary in the first place?

>That's quite untrue.  My concern is simply that people be informed when they
>cast their vote.

Your statement, though, was that the uninformed - presumably, those who don't
understand the One True Definition of Manga - should not vote. That statement
was in direct opposition to the way things work on Usenet. Guess what? Our
contention has been that you don't understand how things work on Usenet.

>Nobody defending r.a.m has a "bruised ego" or "an axe to grind".  We
>want an accurate name for the group just as much as anyone, I can assure you.

Accurate based on an incorrect definition of comics and a flawed understanding
of the net, maybe... Methinks thou doth protest too much.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
   "While we liked developing Windows applications, we never inhaled." --
              Philippe Kahn, in Infoworld, 13 Apr 1992
Newsgroups: news.groups