RSS

Tag Archives: Osamu Tezuka

Manga Studies #6: Takeuchi Osamu and Manga Expression pt. 2: The Historiographic Basis of Manga Formalism by Nicholas Theisen

In part one, I showed how the manga artist Tezuka Osamu and his body of work function as more than a mere object of analysis within manga studies but as a totalizing discourse upon which a number of larger critical concerns are projected. This has the rather odd effect of rendering “Tezuka” a milieu which can absorb even those critiques which seek to overcome a Tezuka-centric purview as to what manga might be in both historical and formal terms. I used the critical writings of Takeuchi Osamu not to evaluate them as such but to demonstrate the discursive mechanics of this totalizing absorption. In part two below, I will once again use Takeuchi’s critical oeuvre to examine, in addition to how the critic’s own personal predilections can become subsumed into seemingly objective claims, the assumptions underlying manga formalism: how manga fit with other media, how manga is understood as children’s literature, and how manga is treated as, if not entirely presumed to be, a predominantly postwar phenomenon.

Jaqueline Berndt, in her essay, “Considering Manga Discourse: Location, Ambiguity, Historicity,” identifies four generations of manga studies in Japan. The first, emerging in the early 1960s, is identified with the journal Shisō no kagaku (The Science of Thought), and the second, from the late ‘60s into the ‘70s, with the journal Mangashugi (Manga-ism). Both of these generations were largely concerned with manga as a sociological phenomenon. The first sharp turn in manga studies discourse came with the third generation, the so-called “first person narrators” (boku-gatari) for whom manga critique was not only a function of one’s subjective, emotional response to comic reading but, as “reader” rather than “scholar,” the manga critic “functioned as an arbiter of taste and a means for the fan community’s self-affirmation.”[1] The turn away from a sociographic approach to the study of manga was, then, commensurate with an increased parochialism, wherein the values of a limited, fannish readership were held to be the ideal. This turn, while problematic, was nevertheless liberating for women writing about shōjo manga, which in the 1970s and 1980s was still widely denigrated.

Takeuchi most properly belongs to the fourth generation, emerging in the 1990s, which she identifies with Yomota Inuhiko and Natsume Fusanosuke, who seemed to eschew the subjective criticism of the previous generation as well as the sociologically oriented criticism of even earlier ones in favor of semiotics or, more specifically, manga hyōgen/manga expression: “[Yomota’s and Natsume’s] semiotic approach was intended to claim manga as an autonomous medium by explicating its unique means of expression from an internal perspective.”[2] I say “seemed to eschew,” because while the study of manga expression seeks to make objective claims about how manga are put together, those claims quite often betray their origins in the critic’s personal experiences. For instance, I noted in part one how Takeuchi set his own experiences reading Tezuka’s manga as a child against the “fashionable” trends of the 1960s and ‘70s in order to make the rather bald assertion that Tezuka lay at the heart of it all as well as how Natsume, thinking back on his earliest work, could see that it stemmed from his own particular interests and was, as such, rather limited.

The particular kind of manga formalism that followed from the more subjective criticism that preceded it did not entirely leave the “first-person narrators” behind. In fact, the study of manga expression, despite its objective pretensions, is profoundly subjective, though in ways that are not immediately apparent. What is not always clear and yet must be kept in mind is that formalist approaches, while broadly empirical, are not strictly descriptive—rather, something is first presumed to be manga (even while excluding a number of textual artifacts that go by that designation), that “something” is broken down into structural components, and then a formal theory based on those components is used as a lens to look back on manga in toto.[3] One only ever gets the occasional glimpse of what manga is presumed to be, though in Takeuchi’s critical corpus these manga presumptions are somewhat more common and easier to identify.

For Takeuchi, the study of manga expression is but one facet of the study of a much broader range of means of visual [re]presentation in all popular media. He identifies both Natsume and Yomota as initiators of the study of manga expression, but then almost immediately turns the discussion to how he believes it to be much older than the work of those two foundational critics. He locates manga hyōgen (i.e. manga expression) within what he refers to simply as hyōgen (i.e. expression/presentation), by which he appears to mean all visual expression in media, thereby combining the visual aesthetics of forms as disparate as film and children’s picture books (ehon) under one large hyōgen umbrella.[4] This understanding of manga among other media goes all the way back to the beginning of his career as a manga scholar/critic, 1989’s Manga to jidō bungaku no “aida” (“Between” Manga and Children’s Literature), and is central both to his own manga formalism and to the place the study of manga expression occupies within the history of manga studies. It is for this latter reason especially that I have preferred the work of Takeuchi in examining how manga formalism fits within a larger discourse to Yomota or Natsume, even though those two are, arguably, far more influential. It is in Takeuchi’s broader purview that the historiographic assumptions underlying manga formalism, even in those works for which the history of manga seems not to be a concern, is revealingly laid bare. Takeuchi himself does not explicitly point to these assumptions, but because his critical works have been directed both toward the history of manga and occasionally toward the history or, at least, important moments within the ongoing discourse of manga studies, we can see both how certain presumptions concerning what manga is (i.e. its formal properties) are embedded in historiographic treatments as well as how those histories inform what kinds of manga (and, in Takeuchi’s case especially, what kinds of graphic narrative generally) are chosen as the most common object of seemingly objective formal analysis.

In his overview of the study of manga history,[5] Miyamoto Hirohito identifies two rather sweeping though nonetheless useful categories of manga historiography: one which regards manga history as going back to the 12th century illustrated scrolls (emakimono) Chōjū jinbutstu giga, a common locus for the “origins” of manga, and one which takes the end of World War II as the proper point of departure for manga history.[6] Of these two categories, Takeuchi is placed quite rightly in the latter, especially given the title of his most well-known historiographic work, Sengo manga no 50nen-shi (50 Year History of Postwar Manga), published in 1995, which clearly takes the year 1945 as a point of demarcation. These groupings are, moreover, not limited to Japanese language manga studies discourse. Both Paul Gravett’s Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics (published in 2004) and Sharon Kinsella’s Adult Manga take the postwar era as the proper historical locus for the study of manga, the latter going so far as to claim manga, rather dismissively, to be a “strikingly contemporary phenomenon,”[7] with little in the way of explanation as to what that might mean.

The “postwar,” by which is meant not just the immediate postwar period but every year since the end of World War II, works well enough as a historical frame of reference, precisely because the history of modern Japan, in Japanese language discourse especially, is so pervasively, though not universally, divided in two: one period beginning roughly from the Meiji Restoration in 1868 and a second from the Allied occupation in 1945. The postwar as a historiographic frame is not limited to formalist approaches. Tsurumi Shunsuke’s Manga no sengo shisō (Thoughts on Manga in the Postwar) considers the impact of a number of postwar manga artists, but his formal considerations, such as they are, appear in the context of a long historical treatment of doodles (rakugaki) in Japan.[8] Moreover, none of the formalists identified here—Natsume, Yomota, or Takeuchi—simply disregard the significance of pre-war manga. Takeuchi’s Kodomo manga no kyojin-tachi: Rakuten kara Tezuka made (Giants of Children’s Manga: from Rakuten to Tezuka), for instance, closely examines a number of manga artists from this period. Rather, postwar manga is seen as initiating a distinct shift, a novel mode of expression that prewar manga fails to fully encapsulate. This stylistic shift is commensurate with the cultural and political upheaval in Japanese society under the Allied occupation and subsequent economic boom. Arguably more than any other nation, Japan was radically transformed at the end of war with the emperor’s public rejection of his “divinity,” the occupation, the rewriting of the Japanese constitution under Allied pressure, the dissolution of the army, the restructuring of the Japanese economy, and the sudden influx of foreign media after years of privation.

A number of disparate frames of reference—manga as children’s culture, manga expression as media expression, and manga as postwar phenomenon (despite continuities with the prewar/wartime[9])—come together in the opening of the first chapter of Takeuchi’s 50 Year History of Postwar Manga. He begins with the political upheavals of 1945 and continues with the sudden change in lifestyle of the Japanese populace as a result of American films and fashion trends. From there, Takeuchi turns to the subject of his book, so-called “story manga” (i.e. long form[10] narrative manga), about which one might claim a “new style of expression” (atarashii stairu no hyōgen), yet Takeuchi himself considers matters to be not so clear cut. Manga is, for him, a creature of mass media, so his first entrée into discussing manga in the postwar concerns itself less with form (i.e. panels, speech balloons, figures, etc.) than with format. The distinction between form and format here is a crude one but is meant to show how Takeuchi’s formalism is not merely a function of what one sees on any given page but also of the printed format in which it appears, be it book or magazine or whatever.

This, then, leads him into a discussion of akahon, “red books” so called for their predominantly red covers. Unlike the hardbound volumes of popular pre- and postwar manga series, akahon in many ways more closely resembled magazines without actually being so, staple-bound newsprint with cardstock covers, selling for as little as five yen, a price suitable for purchase by and for children.[11] In the postwar era, as Ryan Holmberg notes, “[p]hysically and stylistically, they [were] clearly products of an age of want. They [were] flimsier, sometimes due to lack of high-grade paper and printing facilities after the war, sometimes from simple cost-cutting. The anything-goes energy of the age fueled many artistic innovations, some lost to history, others becoming the foundation stones of story-telling in postwar manga.” Despite going back long before, the akahon of the postwar are, for both Takeuchi and Holmberg, creatures of a very particular time and place, whose innovations become foundational for all manga to follow. The sense that is given, then, is not that manga did not exist in this prewar era but rather that those manga are largely other to what we see nowadays.

This focus on print media and, more specifically, print media for children makes sense of a number of peculiar inclusions and exclusions in Takeuchi’s larger critical practice. For instance, the Gendai manga hakubutsukan, 1945-2005 (The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Manga, 1945-2005), which Takeuchi edited along with Yonezawa Yoshihiro and Yamada Tomoko, omits a number of prominent comic strip (koma manga) artists (Hasegawa Machiko, the creator of Sazae-san, being the most glaring omission) yet includes a number of highly regarded artists/writers of emonogatari (illustrated stories). The inclusion of illustrated stories alongside the rather spare inclusion of comic strips can be accounted for somewhat by the fact that the manga magazines of the midcentury were far more mixed than the monthly and weekly magazines of today. Those magazines contained both manga and emonogatari in addition to puzzles, game boards, glossy photos, and a number of other visual media. Moreover, the koma manga that Takeuchi et al. do include are those that are found in these mixed media periodicals for children. Those they do not include, for the most part, are to be found outside them in newspapers and other periodical media aimed at, if not an exclusively adult, then a general audience.

Thus, what is regarded as manga in the first place, manga at all, as far as Takeuchi is concerned, stems from illustrated narratives produced for children in the immediate postwar. This presumption becomes the object of formal analysis, and the principles derived therefrom become the frame of reference for examining manga from all time periods. How this retrospection works can be seen in how Takeuchi, in Giants of Children’s Manga, characterizes Kitazawa Rakuten’s Chame manga as “for children,” despite the fact that many of the periodicals in which those strips appeared, Tokyo Puck, for instance, could not be meaningfully understood as being exclusively for a younger audience.[12] According to this purview, then, which makes invisible much of the manga “for adults” (or for a general audience) that preceded the war and persisted thereafter, the juvenilia of postwar manga print media grows into the more adolescent and young adult-oriented manga of the late 1950s and ‘60s and so forth and so forth in an easily digestible myth of progress. If permitted to speculate, I would say this is because, as I have argued elsewhere, shōnen manga of the postwar function, in practice if not in intent, as generic rather than as tailored to a certain gender and age demographic. According to this somewhat concealed logic, then, manga “for children” provide the base structure from which later manga presumably emerge.

References

Berndt, Jaqueline, 2008. “Considering Manga Discourse: Location, Ambiguity, Historicity,” in MacWilliams, Mark W. ed., Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 295-334.

Gravett, Paul, 2004. Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Collins Design.

Groensteen, Thierry, 1991. L’univers des mangas: Une introduction à la bande dessinée japonaise (The Universe of Manga: An Introduction to Japanese Comics). Tournai: Casterman.

Holmberg, Ryan.

— 2012. “The Bottom of a Bottomless Barrel: Introducing Akahon Manga” in The Comics Journal, January 5, 2012. Accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.tcj.com/the-bottom-of-a-bottomless-barrel-introducing-akahon-manga/

— 2012. “Manga Finds Pirate Gold: The case of New Treasure Island” in The Comics Journal, October 1, 2012. Accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.tcj.com/manga-finds-pirate-gold-the-case-of-new-treasure-island/

Itō, Gō, 2005. Tezuka izu deddo: hirakareta manga hyōgenron e (Tezuka is Dead: Toward an Enlightened Theory of Manga Expression). Tokyo: NTT Shuppan.

Kinsella, Sharon, 2000. Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Lamarre, Thomas, 2010. “Speciesism, Part II: Tezuka Osamu and the Multispecies Ideal” in Mechademia vol. 5: Fanthropologies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 51-85.

McCarthy, Helen, 2009. The Art of Osamu Tezuka: God of Manga. New York: Abrams ComicArts.

McCloud, Scott, 1993. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. Northampton, MA: Kitchen Sink Press.

Miyamoto, Hirohito, 2009. “Rekishi kenkyū” in Natsume, Fusanosuke and Takeuchi Osamu, eds., 2009. Manga-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to Manga Studies). Tokyo: Minerva Shobō, pp. 96-101.

Nakano, Haruyuki, 2007. Nazo no mangaka Sakai Shichima: “Shintakarajima” densetsu no hikari to kage (The Mysterious Manga Artist Sakai Shichima: The Light and Shadow of the Legend of “New Treasure Island”). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

Natsume, Fusanosuke.

— 1992. Tezuka Osamu wa doko ni iru (Where is Tezuka Osamu?). Tokyo: Chikuma Library.

— 2013. “Where is Tezuka?: A Theory of Manga Expression” trans. Matthew Young in Mechademia 8: Tezuka’s Manga Life, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 155-171.

Natsume, Fusanosuke and Takeuchi Osamu, eds., 2009. Manga-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to Manga Studies). Tokyo: Minerva Shobō.

Ōtsuka, Eiji, 2013. Mikkī no shoshiki: sengo manga no senjika kigen (The Form of Mickey: The Wartime Origins of Postwar Manga). Tokyo: Kadokawa Sōsho.

Schodt, Frederik L., 1983. Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics. New York: Kondansha International.

Suzuki, CJ. “Manga Studies #4: Traversing Art and Manga: Ishiko Junzō’s Writings on Manga/Gekiga” in Comics Forum, August 11, 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014, https://comicsforum.org/2014/08/11/manga-studies-4-traversing-art-and-manga-ishiko-junzos-writings-on-mangagekiga-by-shige-cj-suzuki/

Takeuchi, Osamu.

— 1989. Manga to jidō bungaku no “aida” (“Between” Manga and Children’s Literature). Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho.

— 1992. Tezuka Osamu-ron (On Tezuka Osamu). Tokyo: Heibonsha.

— 1995. Sengo manga 50nen-shi (Fifty Year History of Postwar Manga). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

— 1995. Kodomo manga no kyojin-tachi: Rakuten kara Tezuka made (Giants of Children’s Manga: From Rakuten to Tezuka). Tokyo: San’ichi Shobō.

— 2005. Manga hyōgen-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to the Study of Manga Expression). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

— 2009. “Manga kenkyū no ayumi” (“A Walk Through Manga Studies”) in Natsume, Fusanosuke and Takeuchi Osamu, eds., 2009. Manga-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to Manga Studies). Tokyo: Minerva Shobō, pp. 248-257.

Takeuchi, Osamu and Koyama Masahiro, eds., 2006. Anime e no hen’yō: gensaku to anime to no bimyō na kankei (Adaptation to Anime: The Subtle Relationship Between Anime and Original). Tokyo: Gendai Shokan.

Takeuchi, Osamu, Yonezawa Yoshihiro, and Yamada Tomoko, eds., 2006. Gendai manga hakubutsukan 1945-2005 (The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Manga 1945-2005). Tokyo: Shōgakkan.

Theisen, Nicholas, 2013. “13a. The Problematic Gendering of Shōnen Manga” in What is Manga?, May 27, 2013. Accessed August 10, 2014, http://whatismanga.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/13a-the-problematic-gendering-of-shonen-manga/

Tsurumi, Shunsuke, 1991. Manga no dokusha to shite (As a Manga Reader…). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

Yomota, Inuhiko, 1994. Manga genron (Principles of Manga). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

Nicholas Theisen is a research fellow with the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies at the University of Iowa. His research is interested broadly with textual and formalist issues in poetry, popular music, and comics, and he has written articles on the comics of Dave Sim, Tezuka Osamu, and Miyazaki Hayao. He is currently at work completing a book project which reconfigures comics as a hermeneutic practice rather than as a visual form. He is also the creator of the blog What is Manga?

[1] Berndt, 303-304.

[2] ibid., 304.

[3] Though I have limited myself to a discussion of manga, one could easily substitute each instance of the word “manga” in this paragraph with the words “comics” or “comic,” and the argument would largely remain the same.

[4] Takeuchi, “Manga kenkyū no ayumi,” 250-251.

[5] Miyamoto, 96-7.

[6] Miyamoto’s purpose in identifying these two camps, it should be noted, is to critique them and to show how treating manga as a postwar or as a transhistorical phenomenon are both problematic.

[7] Kinsella, 19.

[8] “Comics [manga] have their origins in doodles, and in the modern day comics are one source of doodles.” Tsurumi, 89.

[9] Ōtsuka Eiji’s Mikkī no shoshiki: sengo manga no senjika kigen (The Form of Mickey: The Wartime Origins of Postwar Manga), for example, attempts to disrupt the convenient distinction between pre- and post-war and tries, to a limited degree, to re-assert continuity.

[10] “Story manga” (sutorii manga) is a relatively recent term, and “long form” here is a rendering of chōhen, a term actually used in the immediate postwar period.

[11] Exchange rates fluctuated wildly during the occupation, but in 1949 the rate was fixed at 360 yen to the US dollar, making five yen roughly equivalent to the purchasing power of a single US penny.

[12] What is more, the trajectory of Giants is one meant to arrive at Tezuka, the most common locus for the postwar stylistic shift.

To read more from Comics Forum’s Manga Studies column, click here.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on 2015/01/09 in Manga Studies

 

Tags: , ,

Manga Studies #5: Takeuchi Osamu and Manga Expression pt. 1: Tezuka Osamu as Manga Locus by Nicholas Theisen

Takeuchi Osamu, a professor of media studies at Doshisha University, is likely not the best manga studies critic to use as an introduction to problems surrounding the relatively recent turn in Japanese manga studies discourse to formalism or, more specifically, to the study of manga expression (manga hyōgen), since his work is something of a too easy target.  It is parochial—his examples, despite pretensions toward general principles, are exclusively Japanese—and has changed surprisingly little since the late 1980s, despite the fact that his contemporaries, such as Natsume Fusanosuke and Yomota Inuhiko, and the manga expression discourse in toto have changed considerably in the intervening years. Yomota’s Manga genron (Principles of Manga) makes reference to at least some non-Japanese comics artists, notably Windsor McCay, and in the introduction to a recent translation of two chapters of his Tezuka Osamu wa doko ni iru (Where is Tezuka Osamu?), Natsume reflects on how limited this early formalist work was and, if reproduced today, would have to be understood within the context of a global comics studies discourse:

At the time I wrote this book, my interests generally centered on postwar Japanese manga, and the scope of my inquiry was almost entirely limited to Japan.  If we were to consider European and American influences on manga from the Meiji period [1868-1912], the discussion in this book on transformations related to time and panel articulation would link to world-historical questions of modernity (changes in the expression of time and space in modern times)… Future research will surely depend on sharing knowledge and intellectual exchanges between scholars in different countries.[1]

While a turn away from more parochial concerns is admirable, a broadening of perspective on manga-as-comic expression is not guaranteed to overcome or even make apparent a number of assumptions underlying the study of manga expression as it emerged historically and in direct response to the currents of nearly two decades of manga criticism that preceded it.  In order to make those assumptions more apparent, my use of Takeuchi’s critical oeuvre here is directed more toward discourse analytical ends than toward a detailed explication of what his theory of manga expression entails.

In part one, I will focus on how the manga of Tezuka Osamu function as a primary site, a manga locus, wherein Takeuchi and others readily find the base text upon which their formal theories are founded.  Additionally, I will show how he situates his own work in the discourse surrounding Tezuka’s corpus and how, in doing so, he subsumes even those critics who might try to go beyond it into a broadly based Tezuka centrism firmly rooted within manga studies discourse.  In part two, I will focus on Takeuchi’s historiographic work so as to examine a certain overlap between where manga might be located historically and what subsequently manga is presumed to be in formal terms.  I will show how Takeuchi’s emphasis on print media for children explains a number of inclusions and oversights with regard to what manga might be in the postwar era.

Within Japanese formalist manga criticism, no artist’s work has been more consistently taken as emblematic than that of Tezuka Osamu. As Jaqueline Berndt notes in her “Considering Manga Discourse” essay,

[Tezuka] influenced generations of manga creators and readers, including such critics and researchers as Osamu Takeuchi [sic], originally a professor of children’s literature, and “manga columnist” Fusanosuke Natsume [sic]… In their analysis, Tezuka’s comics for children appeared revolutionary because of their shift from didactics to entertainment, their establishment of long and exciting narratives, the efficient and complementary intertwining of verbal and pictorial elements, and—most importantly—their use of allegedly cinematic techniques such as montage and varying shots and angles.[2]

“Cinematism” (eiga-teki shuhō) becomes the watchword for an entire critical discourse that plays out with Tezuka’s manga as the primary locus of analysis but extends well beyond him.[3] As Berndt goes on to note, this cinematic frame forces manga to be understood primarily in temporal terms, and so graphic elements are always subordinate to narrative.  The Tezuka mythos is, of course, not universally accepted, even by those who valorize him, and extends well beyond Takeuchi’s scholarship and even manga studies in Japan.

Thierry Groensteen too, in one of the earliest works on manga in French, L’Univers des mangas: Une introduction à la bande dessinée japonaise (The Universe of Manga: An Introduction to Japanese Comics), regards Tezuka as le fondateur (the founder):

Osamu Tezuka [sic]… is not the pioneer of Japanese comics, a title which rightly belongs to Rakuten Kitazawa [sic], but is one whose innovations, immediately after the war, gave manga new foundations, is one in whom an entire generation of artists recognized their master.[4]

Additionally, the introduction to Frederik Schodt’s Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics was written by the “master” himself and treats Tezuka’s manga at great length.  For Scott McCloud Tezuka’s work is a primary exemplum for how his method of charting panel transitions demonstrates an essential difference between Japanese and Anglo-American comics.  Tezuka-centrism, then, is well-inscribed in the manga studies discourse, both Japanese and non-Japanese alike.  However, because McCloud and Groensteen have arguably limited access to Japanese comics scholarship, due to the language barrier, it should be noted that their Tezuka centrism functions as a corrective gesture, rather than an attempt to ground one’s critical work in that of a widely recognized master.  In fact, Helen McCarthy, as late as 2009, laments in the preface to her The Art of Osamu Tezuka: God of Manga, “the man who was largely responsible for the Japanese boom in comics after World War II [i.e. Tezuka]… remains almost unknown in the English-speaking world.”[5]

Though Takeuchi was originally, as Berndt says, a professor of children’s literature, his engagement with Tezuka’s manga corpus goes back at least as far as his graduate thesis, “Tetsuwan Atomu ni okeru Atomu-zō no hensen” (“The Changing Figure of Astro in Astro Boy”).  Moreover, his first book devoted solely to manga was a collection of essays titled Tezuka Osamu-ron (On Tezuka Osamu).  Tezuka is for Takeuchi both a personal and professional object of interest.  What is more, what “Tezuka” means within that professional framework is far more than a particular artist or a body of work that artist signifies.[6]  While Takeuchi may not explicitly make this claim himself, nevertheless, his criticism can be used to show that within Japanese language manga studies “Tezuka” is not merely an artist or body of work but a discourse unto himself, a site upon which a number of larger critical concerns play out with the somewhat ironic effect of subsuming even recent critiques of the Tezuka mythos into a broadly based Tezuka-centrism, which Thomas Lamarre has referred to as the “long, unending Tezuka.”[7]

Though not exclusively devoted to questions of form, On Tezuka does quite consistently raise them.  Yet, because the specifics of Takeuchi’s formal analysis do not necessarily lead to an understanding of how they are situated discursively, it is worthwhile examining the premises he works from, and in this he is quite explicit: “Tezuka Osamu is the manga artist [most] indicative of the postwar.”[8]  He goes on to note that, when he was young, many children just like him were reading Tezuka’s manga, indicating the personal/professional overlap in Takeuchi’s engagement with manga.  He also continues by taking a meta-critical jab at the generations of manga critics to precede him, one that might look harmless enough to an uninformed reader:

From the ‘60s onward, gekiga and a new type of shōjo manga were in fashion, and for a moment the times seemed far off from that world [of my childhood], but there was one manga artist at the heart of things throughout. That artist was, of course, Tezuka Osamu.[9]

This casual reference to the “detached” ‘60s and ‘70s concerns not merely the changing trends of what kinds of manga were popular when but also how the earliest generations of manga critics, according to a particular history,[10] tended to valorize gekiga artists in accordance with a more, though not exclusively, socio-culturally oriented mode of manga criticism.  As CJ Suzuki has noted, Ishiko Junzō and the other contributors to Mangashugi gravitated toward artists such as Shirato Sanpei, Tsuge Yoshiharu, Mizuki Shigeru, and Tatsumi Yoshihiro.  Similarly, Tsurumi Shunsuke, in both his English and Japanese language criticism generally had far more to say about Shirato and Mizuki than Tezuka.  Not that Tsurumi ignored Tezuka’s manga entirely, but he regarded them as no more or less important than any other’s.  For Takeuchi to claim that Tezuka lay at the heart of it all is to meta-critically reassert the artist’s dominance over against those who in the earlier history of manga studies placed him on a level playing field.

With this in mind, I would like to closely examine the final On Tezuka essay, “Eiga-teki shuhō · saikō” (“Cinematism, Reconsidered”).  The essay takes as its primary text Tezuka’s 1947 collaboration with Sakai Shichima, Shintakarajima (New Treasure Island), which, while not Tezuka’s first manga, has historically been the locus for a number of arguments regarding Tezuka’s innovations as well as what manga became in the postwar era.  The essay begins by recounting and deconstructing the myths surrounding this text, in particular how these myths were used by critics to build up an unnecessary pre-eminence for Tezuka as the originator of story manga.  This deconstruction is achieved not by simply lodging counter arguments against elements of this mythos but by referencing and reconstructing a critical discourse in which the objections to the myths play out.  With regard to layout, Takeuchi invokes Kure Tomofusa’s critique of the notion that New Treasure Island was the first to use a three tiered panel layout by showing how Shishido Sakō’s Supīdo tarō (Speed Boy) had done so in the 1930s.[11]  For Takeuchi, the important question is not whether Tezuka was the first or a major practitioner of manga cinematism but rather what the nature of that cinematic expression is.  He then turns to the meat of his own argument, wherein he demonstrates the similarities between page layouts in New Treasure Island to the film technique of montage.[12]

Of course, all scholarship is, to a certain extent, meta-critical, the literature review in particular being regarded as key to situating one’s research, but how Takeuchi places others within the discourse on Tezuka and within manga studies in general is slightly different from what one sees in the main with academic research.  In the years since Takeuchi’s collection of essays, the Tezuka mythos has taken a number of additional hits.  Nakano Haruyuki’s critical biography of Sakai Shichima, Nazo no mangaka Sakai Shichima: “Shintakarajima” densetsu no hikari to kage (Mysterious Manga Artist Sakai Shichima: The Light and Shadow of the New Treasure Island Legend), asserts the likelihood that Sakai had far more to do with the production of the comic than simply a story outline.  He claims Sakai’s background as a storyboard artist for animated films is a far better explanation for the “cinematic” qualities of New Treasure Island’s layout and artwork than the assertion that Tezuka derived a manga cinematism simply from observing films as projected.  Ryan Holmberg has also shown how Tezuka and Sakai likely worked directly from a 1942 Disney comic, Donald Duck Finds Pirate Gold!

The most concerted and important deconstruction of the Tezuka mythos—and the most relevant to Takeuchi’s own work—in recent years is Itō Gō’s provocatively titled Tezuka izu deddo: hirakareta manga hyōgen-ron e (Tezuka is Dead: Toward an Enlightened Theory of Manga Expression).  Itō’s critique of Takeuchi in Tezuka is Dead as well as Takeuchi’s reading of Itō in his independent journal (dōjinshi) Biranji are worth treating in detail, but my concern here is what happens to critical work, especially that which attempts to “get over” what precedes it, when read into the ordinary scholarly practice of situating one’s own work with regard to that of others.  Perhaps, then, it is better to return to Natsume’s retrospective on Where is Tezuka Osamu?:

A mythologizing discourse characterizing Tezuka’s manga as a sort of postwar “god” had already [begun] to take shape in the early 1960s, and this book was in part an attempt to assess the truth of such claims at the level of concrete manga expression.  Tezuka’s 1946 book Shin takarajima (New Treasure Island), based on a story by Sakai Shichima, is often characterized as the work that introduced “cinematic techniques” to manga, reforming postwar manga.  Was this actually true?  If so, how was it possible?[13]

What Natsume makes clear is how even a polemical critique of the “mythologizing discourse” of Tezuka as the manga no kami-sama, “god of manga,” must engage in assessing the truth value of that discourse, must become part of the history of a discourse that, even if one manages to strip a particular object (for instance, Tezuka and his body of work) of its absolute importance, one may have done little to strip the discourse surrounding it of its pride of place within manga studies.  In fact, as Takeuchi’s own appropriation of critiques of the Tezuka mythos shows, any concerted engagement with Tezuka as manga locus, be it polemical or not, runs the risk of becoming another precursor, another literature review, to the same old arguments.

References

Berndt, Jaqueline, 2008. “Considering Manga Discourse: Location, Ambiguity, Historicity,” in MacWilliams, Mark W. ed., Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 295-334.

Gravett, Paul, 2004. Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics. New York: Collins Design.

Groensteen, Thierry, 1991. L’univers des mangas: Une introduction à la bande dessinée japonaise (The Universe of Manga: An Introduction to Japanese Comics). Tournai: Casterman.

Holmberg, Ryan.

— 2012. “The Bottom of a Bottomless Barrel: Introducing Akahon Manga” in The Comics Journal, January 5, 2012. Accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.tcj.com/the-bottom-of-a-bottomless-barrel-introducing-akahon-manga/

— 2012. “Manga Finds Pirate Gold: The case of New Treasure Island” in The Comics Journal, October 1, 2012.  Accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.tcj.com/manga-finds-pirate-gold-the-case-of-new-treasure-island/

Itō, Gō, 2005. Tezuka izu deddo: hirakareta manga hyōgenron e (Tezuka is Dead: Toward an Enlightened Theory of Manga Expression). Tokyo: NTT Shuppan.

Kinsella, Sharon, 2000. Adult Manga: Culture and Power in Contemporary Japanese Society. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Lamarre, Thomas, 2010. “Speciesism, Part II: Tezuka Osamu and the Multispecies Ideal” in Mechademia vol. 5: Fanthropologies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 51-85.

McCarthy, Helen, 2009. The Art of Osamu Tezuka: God of Manga. New York: Abrams ComicArts.

McCloud, Scott, 1993. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. Northampton, MA: Kitchen Sink Press.

Miyamoto, Hirohito, 2009. “Rekishi kenkyū” in Natsume, Fusanosuke and Takeuchi Osamu, eds., 2009. Manga-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to Manga Studies). Tokyo: Minerva Shobō, pp. 96-101.

Nakano, Haruyuki, 2007. Nazo no mangaka Sakai Shichima: “Shintakarajima” densetsu no hikari to kage (The Mysterious Manga Artist Sakai Shichima: The Light and Shadow of the Legend of “New Treasure Island”). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

Natsume, Fusanosuke.

— 1992. Tezuka Osamu wa doko ni iru (Where is Tezuka Osamu?). Tokyo: Chikuma Library.

— 2013. “Where is Tezuka?: A Theory of Manga Expression” trans. Matthew Young in Mechademia 8: Tezuka’s Manga Life, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 155-171.

Natsume, Fusanosuke and Takeuchi Osamu, eds., 2009. Manga-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to Manga Studies). Tokyo: Minerva Shobō.

Ōtsuka, Eiji, 2013. Mikkī no shoshiki: sengo manga no senjika kigen (The Form of Mickey: The Wartime Origins of Postwar Manga). Tokyo: Kadokawa Sōsho.

Schodt, Frederik L., 1983. Manga! Manga! The World of Japanese Comics. New York: Kondansha International.

Suzuki, CJ. “Manga Studies #4: Traversing Art and Manga: Ishiko Junzō’s Writings on Manga/Gekiga” in Comics Forum, August 11, 2014. Accessed August 17, 2014, https://comicsforum.org/2014/08/11/manga-studies-4-traversing-art-and-manga-ishiko-junzos-writings-on-mangagekiga-by-shige-cj-suzuki/

Takeuchi, Osamu.

— 1989. Manga to jidō bungaku no “aida” (“Between” Manga and Children’s Literature). Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho.

— 1992. Tezuka Osamu-ron (On Tezuka Osamu). Tokyo: Heibonsha.

— 1995. Sengo manga 50nen-shi (Fifty Year History of Postwar Manga). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

— 1995. Kodomo manga no kyojin-tachi: Rakuten kara Tezuka made (Giants of Children’s Manga: From Rakuten to Tezuka). Tokyo: San’ichi Shobō.

— 2005. Manga hyōgen-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to the Study of Manga Expression). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

— 2009. “Manga kenkyū no ayumi” (“A Walk Through Manga Studies”) in Natsume, Fusanosuke and Takeuchi Osamu, eds., 2009. Manga-gaku nyūmon (Introduction to Manga Studies). Tokyo: Minerva Shobō, pp. 248-257.

Takeuchi, Osamu and Koyama Masahiro, eds., 2006. Anime e no hen’yō: gensaku to anime to no bimyō na kankei (Adaptation to Anime: The Subtle Relationship Between Anime and Original). Tokyo: Gendai Shokan.

Takeuchi, Osamu, Yonezawa Yoshihiro, and Yamada Tomoko, eds., 2006. Gendai manga hakubutsukan 1945-2005 (The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Manga 1945-2005). Tokyo: Shōgakkan.

Theisen, Nicholas, 2013. “13a. The Problematic Gendering of Shōnen Manga” in What is Manga?, May 27, 2013. Accessed August 10, 2014, http://whatismanga.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/13a-the-problematic-gendering-of-shonen-manga/

Tsurumi, Shunsuke, 1991. Manga no dokusha to shite (As a Manga Reader…). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

Yomota, Inuhiko, 1994. Manga genron (Principles of Manga). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.

Nicholas Theisen is a research fellow with the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies at the University of Iowa. His research is interested broadly with textual and formalist issues in poetry, popular music, and comics, and he has written articles on the comics of Dave Sim, Tezuka Osamu, and Miyazaki Hayao. He is currently at work completing a book project which reconfigures comics as a hermeneutic practice rather than as a visual form. He is also the creator of the blog What is Manga?

[1] Natsume, “Where is Tezuka? A Theory of Manga Expression,” 91-2.

[2] Berndt, 302.

[3] In the context of manga, “cinematism” seems to refer to a reflection of certain cinematographic techniques (e.g. montage, close-ups, panning shots, etc.) as adapted to the visual milieu of comics.  However, this more limited sense is often complicated by reference to any number of narrative modes that are not specific to film—and, in fact, ignore how film borrows narratologically from literature—but are, nevertheless, discussed in cinematic terms.

[4] Groensteen, 64.  Translations are, unless otherwise noted, my own.

[5] McCarthy, 8.

[6] It should be kept in mind that Tezuka was very much an auteur in the sense that word is used in film studies: a large number of manga and anime fall under his “authorship” but are, in reality, the product of many more or less invisible hands.

[7] Lamarre, 50.

[8] Takeuchi, Tezuka Osamu-ron, 7.

[9] ibid.

[10] The most common story of the history of manga studies discourse, beginning with Tsurumi Shunsuke, tends to overlook the programmatic and occasionally theoretical claims of pre-war manga artists such as Kitazawa Rakuten and Okamoto Ippei.  For a description of the “four generations” of manga studies, c.f. Berndt, 2008, 303-304.

[11] On Tezuka, 225.

[12] ibid., 234.

[13] Natsume, “Where is Tezuka? A Theory of Manga Expression,” 90.

To read more from Comics Forum’s Manga Studies column, click here.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on 2014/10/08 in Manga Studies

 

Tags: , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: