Odagiri Hiroshi

					

4
Manga truisms:

On the insularity of Japanese manga discourse
ODAGIRI Hiroshi(trans. Jessica Bauwens-Sugimoto)1. Japanese manga in the U.S.
Currently in Europe and the U.S., manga and manga-related topics are discussed as asubgenre of “comics”, or as part of the comics business. To give one example, the “ArtsBeat” section of the New York Times (shortened to NYT hereafter) from March 12th,
2010 (Gustine 2010) discusses the hit film Kick-Ass, based on a comic by Mark Miller
and John Romita Jr.,1 as well as the comics version of the TV series Buffy The Vampire
Slayer, created by Espenson, Jeanty, and Whedon (2007),2 and it goes on to mention
that Kubo Tite’s BLEACH3 is number one on the comics’ bestseller list. Consequently,
it seems worth taking a closer look at the system of classification used by this bestseller
list (New York Times 2010).
The Graphic Books category on the NYT bestseller list, to which comics belong,is divided by format into three subcategories. Kick-Ass is number one in the hardcovercategory, while Buffy the Vampire Slayer is number one in the paperback category. The
only difference between the two titles is format, which is easy enough to understand.
However, the last category, where BLEACH is number one, is for manga. Looking at
the structure of this list, it is easy to conclude that manga are so popular that they havea separate category devoted to them in the bestseller list. However, the list’s structure is
1 This series went on sale in 2008 under ICON, a label for original works by Marvel Comics’
creators.
2 Strictly speaking, this is a sequel written after the TV series was completed.
3 Viz Media started publishing the English translation in 2004.

55 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality.
It is true that to a certain extent Japanese manga are an established genre in the
U.S. market, but these “manga” are not the same as Japanese manga. We can see thisby looking at the work ranked fifth on the list: Dark Hunters created by Campos and
Kenyon (2009),4 an original American work. The criteria for being included in thislist are not publicly available, but it is likely that works categorized as manga here arewhat we in Japan call “new book editions” (shinshohan tankōbon, a format slightly
smaller than usual Japanese manga volumes). Trade paperbacks of comics in the U.S.
are mainly the same size as comic books, that is, A4. So-called “digests” and “tankōbon”
are relatively new forms born from and made popular through translations of Japanesemanga. I assume that the art was also taken into consideration, but it does not seem tomatter whether the work is of Japanese origin or not. It is more likely that because offactors like price and format, American “manga” and Japanese shinshohan were thrown
together in the same category.
In contrast, there is the recent trend to promote Japanese manga published inlarge-size hardcover or softcover editions not as “manga,” but “graphic novels” in the
U.S. The works by Tezuka Osamu published by Vertical are just one example. Startingwith Buddha in 2006,5 they were published as large-size hardcovers and promoted in
catalogues as “graphic novels”. The same strategy applies to Tatsumi Yoshihiro’s A
Drifting Life; its English version was published in 2009 even before the Japanese one,by the Canadian publisher Drawn and Quarterly.
This means that in America the word “manga” has changed semantically; it nolonger refers just to Japanese manga, and even Japanese comics will not always becalled manga. When the word “manga” came in common usage in Europe and the
U.S., it evoked also a certain kind of art style and narrative (which I will not discusshere), but even in regard to style, in the U.S., works that resemble manga but were not

4 It is interesting to note that a different work in this series, Lords of Avalon, was released by
Marvel Comics in 2009 (Adaptation: Robin Furth, Art: Tommy Ōtsuka). Tommy Ōtsuka is aJapanese manga artist who does a lot of work in America.
5 Other works in the same format, include Takemiya Keiko’s Andromeda Stories, and Tezuka’s
Apollo’s Song, MW, and Black Jack.

56 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
produced in Japan are no longer exceptional in the U.S.
This trend was pioneered by independent comics publisher Antarctic Press,
owned by Ben Dunn, who has been drawing comics in manga style since the 1980s,
and Adam Warren, who drew original comics and created the characters for Japanese
SF author Takachiho Haruka’s novel Dirty Pair. Artists like Adam Hughes, whostarted Gaijin Studio, a group influenced by Japanese mangaka, and the group Udon
from East Asia, who in the 1990s turned Capcom’s game Street Fighter and the Takara
Toy company’s Transformers into comics, were very successful in the U.S.
After the Pokemon boom in 2000, a “manga generation” appeared, influenced
indiscriminately by both American entertainment like Star Wars and Japanese anime
like Dragon Ball. Debuting at new companies such as TokyoPop, which quickly grew
successful publishing the English version of Sailor Moon, these artists did not all
succeed, but some were able to produce works related to the new media-mix current.
One example is the comics version of Sherilyn Kenyon’s fantasy novel Dark Hunters,
which appeared in the above-mentioned NYT bestseller list, and another one is theoriginal comic Scott Pillgrim by Bryan Lee O’Malley (2004), which has been turned
into a live-action movie. Works like these suggest that the manga generation is about toestablish itself securely in the North American comics business.
For authors and readers of this generation, “manga” does not necessarily mean
Japanese manga.6 If stylistic hybridization continues in the same vain, the unifying
force of the word “manga” will gradually weaken, and the art style and panel layout
associated with it now will become just one of many technical and stylistic options.
2. Manga as a different culture
As mentioned above, at least in the U.S. and Canada, the reception and distributionof Japanese manga are now included in the domain of “comics”, in the sense of “allcomics in North America”. This is probably the same in France and other European
countries. Through the reception of “manga” as a foreign culture, its differences andcommonalities with the comics from the country in question have become visible and6 In contrast, there are also fundamentalists who insist that “Only Japanese manga are realmanga!”; Svetlana Chmakova depicts them in her DRAMACON, vol. 2 (2006).

57 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
subject to debate.
There are not only active comics artists influenced by Japanese manga, like thosementioned above. Since the 1980s, manga has been discussed in the groundbreaking
books by Frederik L. Schodt MANGA! MANGA! The World of Japanese Comics (1986)
and Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga (1996); in introductory articles,
essays and reviews such as those published by Fred Patten in the small magazine
Animerica and later collected in his volume WATCHING ANIME, READING MANGA:
25 Years of Essays and Reviews (2004). Around 1980s, when Schodt and Patten did
introductory work in the academic field too, scholars like John A. Lent, who started
up the International Journal of Comic Art, and Maurice Horn, who edited the World
Encyclopedia of Comics and Cartoons (1998, first publ. 1978), began to bring manga as a
research subject to the fore.
After the general comics boom of the 1990s, 7 there were more opportunities
to discuss manga, last but not least due to the greater interest in comics as a whole,and thanks to the manga boom of the 2000s, manga-related publications increased
exponentially. Although insufficient, there was already some discussion about thedifferences and similarities between “manga” and “comics”.
3. Awareness of foreign comics in Japan
In Japan, the situation is quite different. Today, “manga” almost exclusively signifies
Japanese manga, while foreign comics are not considered part of this category. In
addition, the current manga discourse in Japan―from book reviews and introductoryarticles in magazines and newspapers to criticism and research―takes it for granted that“manga” is characterized by a specific form of expression, that is is “sequential art”,
as Will Eisner and Scott McCloud put it (1985, 1993), or to be more precise, meaning
narrative comics serialized in weekly or monthly manga magazines.
Before attempting to explain why foreign comics are not regarded as manga inJapan, it should be pointed out that even from a global perspective, the domestic Japanesemanga market is unusually large. The amount of works produced domestically is so
considerable that in comparision the circulation of foreign comics is dwarfed. Their
7 For more information about this phenomenon, see Odagiri (2007).

58 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
relative lack of distribution is directly related to the low awareness of “foreign manga”
as a whole. To make matters worse, Japanese readers will sometimes simplisticallyassume that foreign comics must be of inferior quality because they do not sell well inJapan.
The strange thing is that there are numerous examples of foreign comics that are
actually selling well in Japan; however, these aren’t seen as “manga”. The Japanesedistribution of Charles Schulz’s Peanuts and Hergé’s Tintin, representative classic
comics in English and French respectively, provides the most telling example of how
strangely the Japanese manga market works. Schulz’s Peanuts maintains its popularity
through the sale of character goods, stuffed animals, and other merchandise since its
character Snoopy, the Beagle dog, is extremely famous, but its original title is almost
unknown. In spite of that it has been translated into Japanese several times, available
until this day in both small and large paperback formats.8 However, these publications
are rarely referred to as “manga” and they cannot be found in the manga corner ofbookstores; instead, they are placed on the same shelf as self-help books and foreign
literature.
In the case of Hergé’s Tintin, the difference in treatment is even more obvious.
Although The Adventures of Tintin, as the entire series is named, was published inJapanese by Fukuinkan publ., it is distributed as a “picture book” and only rarelyreferred to as “manga”.
There are countless similar cases which sold several ten thousands of copies
supported by the American action-figure boom which Japan experienced in the 1990s,
for example Todd McFarlane’s Spawn (1992) and the X-men at the time of Jim Lee’s
artwork.9 More recently, there has been Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis (2000) and Alan
Moore and Eddie Campbell’s From Hell (1999), noteworthy because they stand out aslong-selling foreign works, yet are routinely ignored in Japanese manga discourse bycritics as well as researchers.
In Japan it has become customary to publish ranking guides of “this year’s best
8 Two examples are Kōdansha’s paperback anthology Sunūpi no motto kiraku ni (1995) andKadokawa’s SNOOPY (2002).
9 These comics were mainly published by Marvel from the late 1980s to the second half of the
1990s. Shōgakukan started publishing translations in 1994.

59 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
manga” in the form of so-called Mooks [a hybrid of magazine and book] by several
publishers,10 but translations of foreign comics are almost never considered, and a
category for “foreign comics” simply does not exist.
The problem is not the availability or distribution level of translations, it is theattitude that “anything that isn’t Japanese manga is of no relevance to us”, whichprevails in contemporary Japanese manga discourse, and it is my personal opinion that
foreign researchers and journalists need to know about this situation.
In America, a certain amount of French-language comics (bande dessinée,BD) have been published, and there are also several studies about French comics(Beaty 2007, McKinney 2008). When French-speaking researchers say that BD andAmerican comics are different, they are able to back this claim up with their experience
as readers, comparing the actual differences and commonalities of the two kinds ofcomics.
However, to most Japanese, regardless of whether the works are from the U.S.
or France, they are the same, that is, “foreign manga”. Regardless of their reading
experience or its lack, most Japanese wrongly assume that foreign comics are different
from Japanese manga and thus of no relevance to them. Even critics and researchers areunaware that this assumption is flawed. For Japanese readers, “manga” is somethingso commonplace that they do not question what it actually means, but as long as critics
and researchers dwell within this limited framework, it will be impossible to establish
any international debate.
4. Considering foreign comics
What I said above applies to the contemporary state of manga discourse in Japan. In thepast, however, foreign comics were actually read and discussed. In Gendai manga noshisō [Thought in contemporary manga], published in 1970, art critic Ishiko Junzō uses
the words kātsūn and renzoku koma manga (lit. continuing panel manga) as equivalents
to the American terms cartoon and comic strip.
In the same book Ishiko quotes from The Comics by Coulton Waugh
10 Some examples are Takarajima Publisher’s Kono manga wa sugoi!, and Freestyle’s Kono
manga o yome!  

60 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi(1947/1991), who did pioneering work in comics research. At the beginning of thebook, Ishiko touches on American comics history in a manner which reveals his
familiarity with contemporaneous comics and comics research. Works on manga
written around 1970 by critics of Waugh’s generation, such as Tsurumi Shunsuke(1973), Ozaki Hideki (1972), Satō Tadao (1973), and Kusamori Shinichi (1967), used
foreign comics as a model in order to explore Japanese manga.
In his foreword to Manga geijutsuron: gendai nihonjin no sensu to humoā nokōzai [Manga Art: The Merits and Demerits of Contemporary Japanese Sense andHumor] (1967), published before the above-mentioned Gendai manga no shisō,
Ishiko expresses dissatisfaction with the way that earlier manga critics such as
Itō Ippei (1955) and Suyama Keiichi (1954) leaned on introducing foreign works
in their publications, which indicates that in the past, Japanese manga discourse
did in fact connect foreign and Japanese manga. This raises the question why theconsideration of foreign manga that existed in Ishiko and Tsurumi’s time disappeared.
5. Two notions of “manga”
In his paper “Manga hihyō no genzai: atarashiki kagaku shugi e no tsuna-watari”[The current state of manga criticism: a bridge to new scientism], published in theanthology Manga hihyō sengen [Manifesto of manga criticism] (Yonezawa 1987),
manga researcher Takeuchi Osamu breaks post-war Japanese manga criticism up
into three phases: (1) 1955-1964, (2) 1965-1974, and (3) 1975-1984. According to
Takeuchi, manga criticism until the first phase showed an “instructional attitude”
criticizing manga as too commercial compared to idealistic children’s literature, withauthors of children’s literature and educators at its center. Takeuchi disapproves of theirframework, which positioned manga as vulgar. Takeuchi regards critics of the samegeneration as the above-mentioned Ishiko and Tsurumi as dominating the second phase.
He positions them as “intellectuals”, meaning critics and researchers that had alreadygained recognition in their respective fields, who came to the fore in this period of rapid
development, when manga’s popularity increased by association with animated series
such as Tetsuwan Atomu (Astro Boy), and rental-library comics (kashihon gekiga)11
11 Produced only for rental libraries not general sale, these comics were original works or book61 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
aimed at the young working class flourished gaining manga an older readership.
A year before Takeuchi’s paper, Kure Tomofusa had already called these
critics’ approach “studies of mass culture by means of the study of manga” in his
Gendai manga no zentaizō [A comprehensive view of contemporary manga] (1986),
but Takeuchi is much more critical: From his point of view, these critics used jargon
from their respective fields, such as “mass culture”, and attempted to turn manga intoa case study in order to examine the potential of existing sciences, but as with the
publications of their predecessors, “the normal reader’s way of reading stays invisible”.
In other words, Takeuchi thinks, that until the early 1970s, manga criticism consisted ofanalysis from external perspectives, which took the manga reader’s view very lightly.
In contrast to this external perspective, critics which had grown up reading
manga, including Takeuchi himself, but also Yonezawa Yoshihiro (1980), Murakami
Tomohiko (1979), and Hashimoto Osamu (1979) came to form the “manga generation’s
criticism” and thus the core of the third phase in Takeuchi’s historical account ofJapan’s manga discourse.
Takeuchi’s scheme has become a kind of official view within Japanese manga
criticism and research, as recent works on discourse history which adhere to it, like
Natsume Fusanosuke’s Manga gaku e no chōsen: shinka suru hihyō chizu [A challenge
for manga research: the evolving critical map] (2004) and Koyama Masahiro’s Sengo
nihon manga ronsōshi [The history of manga debates in postwar Japanese] (2007),
indicate. But a revisiting of Ishiko and Tsurumi’s texts raises doubts about certain
aspects of Takeuchi’s scheme.
It is true that Ishiko, an art critic; Tsurumi, a researcher of popular culture in
general; Ozaki, a scholar of popular literature; and Satō, a film critic, were renowned intheir own fields by the time they started to publish manga criticism. However, contrary
to what Takeuchi pointed out, when reading their work one cannot help but notice
their preferences as mere readers. In both Ishiko’s passion for gekiga [lit. dramatic
pictures] and Tsurumi’s statement, ‘‘I love Sazae-san’’, their tastes show themselves
editions which contained anthologies. Rental book stores existed in various forms until the
1970s, providing reading as entertainment mostly to blue-collar workers. Artists who are now
highly respected overseas, like Mizuki Shigeru and Tatsumi Yoshihiro, created many kashihon
originals.

62 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
quite clearly, which cannot necessarily be said about contemporaries like Yonezawa
and Murakami, to name just two. In these works the perspectives of reader and theorist
are not clearly divided which makes it much harder to decipher “the normal reader’sreading”.
Perhaps Takeuchi’s assessment was not really based on the analysis of
their actual texts, but it rather originated in resistance against the “old notionof manga” proposed by Ishiko and others. This resistance was shared by critics
who like Takeuchi belonged to the postwar baby-boomers and grew up reading
Tezuka’s and his successors’ manga. Precisely this opposition between new andold notions of manga led to the decisive split between the manga criticism up to
Ishiko’s generation and the manga criticism launched by Takeuchi’s generation.
6. Dis/similarities regarding the concept of manga/comics
Assumingly, what we call manga in Japanese, comics in English, and bande dessinée in
French all signify the same medium and form of expression; however, each word refers
to something entirely different. “Manga” signifies a certain kind of style, a certain wayof drawing, as expressed in the term “manga picture”. In contrast, the English “comics”
comes from “comedy” and refers to content. Bande dessinée is the French translationof the English “comic strip”, meaning “drawn belt”, in other words, comics withseveral panels (sequential art), that is, a form of expression.
Among these three general terms, the most difficult to understand is probably
the English “comics”. It is hard to see why people would call sequential art a wordthat stems from “comedy”. In fact, narrative newspaper comics like Buck Rogers andTarzan were not called comic strips in English, but rather “adventure strips”. The word
“strip”, used here to signify a comic with several panels, normally refers to cloth or arag, but it was probably chosen as an attribute for panels.
In America, this word and the variety of its meanings have been subject to debate
for years, but the Japanese word “manga” is not easy either.
The word “manga” refers to a style of drawing; however, the usage of “mangalike”, or “mangaesque” as an adjective, contains a nuance of “funny” or “comical” inJapanese, just like the English word “comics”. This does not come as a surprise if we
63 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
remember that Japan’s modern manga took so-called ponchi-e (Punch pictures) as its
point of departure, modeled after the one-panel comics of The Japan Punch, a magazine
established by an Englishman in 1862. The word “manga”, literally meaning “funny
picture”, was not initially connected to an expressive form or equation with sequential
art. The start of Japan’s modern manga were single pictures, cartoons, so to speak,
whose purpose was satire and humor. In the beginning, one-panel manga were “manga”.
7. The elimination of manga for adults
The elimination of manga for adults is obvious when considering, for example,
Kusamori Shinichi’s Manga-kō: bokutachi jishin no naka no manuke nokenkyū [Thinking manga: studying the moron inside ourselves] (1967). The kindof manga Kusamori sees as ideal is clearly not Tezuka’s story manga, but rather an
unconstrainted manga determined by pictures and ideas and modeled after cartoons
that appeared in American magazines like The New Yorker or Playboy. In fact, until
Kusamori and Ishiko’s generation, there was an unwritten rule that precisely these onepanel cartoons were manga for adults, whereas story manga, including gekiga, werechildren’s manga.12
In contemporary Japan, the distinction between adult manga and children’s
manga no longer makes sense, but as societal common sense this distinction was
still alive in the 1970s when serious story manga had already become the norm inmagazines for boys and young men. And this was not really strange given the factthat at the time European and American comics served as the model. Kusamori’s ideal
cartoonists such as Steinberg and James Thurber, who published their works in firstrate literary magazines like The New Yorker, were highly acclaimed artists in the U.S.,
while comic books were seen as mere children’s reading material. As long as Japanesecritics followed this foreign standard without actually trying out the respective works,
their schematic notion of “cartoons are for adults, narrative comics for children” isunderstandable.
Of course, from a contemporary perspective, the difference between cartoons
12 Tezuka Osamu, the pioneer of post-war manga, stated this clearly in COM, the magazine fromhis own Mushi Production publishing company (Tezuka 1967).

64 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
and narrative comics is in expressive form, not content, but back then it was obviously
difficult to assume the very existence of serious story manga. In fact, what Ishiko andhis contemporaries had to say in this regard is rather muddled and hard to understand.
The unconscious strategy taken by critics around 1980—those who belonged
to the third phase of manga discourse according to Takeuchi—upset this scheme, but
without clearly distinguishing between expressive form and content. They omitted
cartoons, at the time known as comics for adults, from the concept of manga, andtried to reconstruct “manga” as an extension of children’s comics only. Symbolic inthis regard is the five-volume anthology edited by Murakami Tomohiko and Takeuchi
Osamu, Manga hihyō taikei [The manga criticism compendium] (1989), whichsummarized the manga discourse until then. The majority of articles included are aboutstory manga by and after Tezuka as well as their predecessors in prewar children’s
manga, which shows quite clearly the editors’ and their generation’s new notion ofmanga.
Thus, the word manga came to mean something completely different for Ishiko
and Kusamori who saw manga as originating from cartoons, and for the critics of the
1980s who held the assumption that only story manga published after Tezuka werereal “manga”. Actually, the biggest change in manga discourse around 1980 was theelimination of cartoons as manga for adults. But the use of the same word “manga” ledto a lack of awareness about this discrepancy.
In Takeuchi’s above-mentioned dicussion, the first phase of manga discourse
is summarized as a (mainly critical) approach to children’s manga by educators
and authors of children’s literature; however, the introduction of foreign comics bycartoonist Suyama Keiichi, whom Ishiko and Kusamori had directly in mind, as well as
by Itō Ippei, the editor of the cartoon magazine VAN, seems to have never existed. This
was already a distortion of the history of manga discourse, and precisely this distortion
might have supported the present attitude of regarding foreign comics as irrelevant,although at present it is still too early for such an assessment. The only thing we cansay for sure is that we should not take our current views and understandings of mangaas self-evident. We do still lack an understanding not only of different cultures, thatis, foreign comics, but also our very own past notions of manga. This is precisely the
65 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
issue.

Bibliography
Beaty, Bart (2007): Unpopular Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eisner, Will (1985): Comics & Sequential Art. Tamarac: Poorhouse Press.
Gustine, George Gene (2010): Graphic Books Best Sellers: Manga Making News.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/graphic-books-best-sellersmanga-making-news/ (Last access: 2010.07.04)
Hashimoto, Osamu (1979): Hanasaku otome-tachi no kinpira gobō [The blooming maidens’auteed burdock]. Tokyo: Hokueisha.
Horn, Maurice (ed.) (1998): World Encyclopedia of Comics and Cartoons. New York:
Chelsea House Publications.
Ishiko, Junzō (1967): Manga geijutsu-ron: gendai nihonjin no sensu to humoā nokōzai [Manga Art: The Merits and Demerits of Contemporary Japanese Sense andHumor]. Tokyo: Fuji shoin.
Ishiko Junzō (1970): Gendai manga no shisō [Thought in Contemporary Manga]. Tokyo:
Taihei shuppansha.
Itō, Ippei (1955): Sekai no manga [Manga of the world]. Tokyo: Davitto sha.
Koyama, Masahiro (2007): Sengo nihon manga ronsōshi [The History of Manga Debates in
Postwar Japanese]. Tokyo: Gendai shokan.
Kure, Tomofusa (1986): Gendai manga no zentaizō [A comprehensive view ofcontemporary manga]. Tokyo: Press Information Center.
Kusamori, Shinichi (1967): Mangakō: bokutachi jishin no naka no manuke no kenkyū[Thinking Manga: Studying the Moron Inside Ourselves]. Tokyo: Kodama Press.
McCloud, Scott (1993): Understanding Comics, the invisible art. Northampton: Kitchen
Sink Press.
McKinney, Mark (ed.) (2008): History and Politics in French-Language Comics andGraphic Novels. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Murakami, Tomohiko and Takeuchi, Osamu (eds) (1989): Manga hihyō taikei [The Manga

66 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/

Odagiri Hiroshi
criticism compendium]. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Murakami, Tomohiko (1979): Kōgon tsūshin: Dōjidai manga no tame ni [Twilight Times:
for the contemporaneous manga]. Tokyo: Bronzu shinsha.
Natsume, Fusanosuke (2004): Mangagaku e no chōsen: shinka suru hihyō chizu [Achallenge for manga research: The evolving critical map]. Tokyo: NTT shuppan.
New York Times (2010): Graphic Books Best Sellers List. http://www.nytimes.
com/2010/03/21/books/bestseller/bestgraphicbooks.html (last access: 2010/07/04)
Ozaki, Hideki (1972): Gendai manga no gentei [The limits of contemporary manga]. Tokyo:
Kōdansha.
Patten, Fred (2004): WATCHING ANIME, READING MANGA: 25 Years of Essays andReviews. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press.
Satō, Tadao (1973): Nihon no manga [Japanese manga]. Tokyo: Hyōronsha.
Schodt, Frederik L. (1986): MANGA! MANGA! The World of Japanese Comics. New York:
Kodansha America.
____ (1996): Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press.
Suyama, Keiichi (1954): Apure nippon: sekai no manga [Après Japan: comics of the world].
Tokyo: Asoka Shobō.
Takeuchi, Osamu: “Manga hihyō no genzai: atarashiki kagaku shugi e no tsuna-watari” [Thecurrent state of manga criticism: a bridge to new scientism], in: Yonezawa 1987, pp.
67-83.
Tezuka, Osamu (1967): Mangashō no shinsa o shite... [While I was on the jury for the
Manga Awards...], in: COM (March), pp. 184-185.
Tsurumi, Shunsuke (1973): Manga no sengo shisō [Postwar thought in manga]. Tokyo:
Bungeishunjū.
Waugh, Coulton (1991): The Comics. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. (first publ.
1947)
Yonezawa, Yoshihiro (1980): Sengo shōjo manga shi [The history of postwar shōjo manga].
Tokyo: Shinpyōsha.
____ (ed.) (1987): Manga hihyō sengen [Manifesto of manga criticism]. Tokyo: Aki Shobō.

67 © International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1 http://imrc.jp/