Jump to content

Talk:Shōjo manga/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The roots of shojo manga

There are not any works that can be called "shojo manga" until the Showa era. The first manga that's protagonist is a girl is Rakuten Kitazawa's Tonda Haneko jo(1929), but it didn't target only young female audiences. As far as I know, the first successful manga that targeted girls is Machiko Hasegawa's Nakayoshi Techo(1940) serialized in Shojo Club. --Kasuga 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Kasuga, but you're wrong. Simple manga began appearing in girls' magazines in the 1910s. I own a copy of Shoujo, from November 1910, and a copy of Shoujo no tomo, from January 1917, and both include a simple 4-panel manga. By the 1930s, the manga in shoujo magazines had become more sophisticated. The best-known and most talented creator of pre-war shoujo manga was Katsuji Matsumoto, whose hugely popular strip Kurukuru Kurumi-chan first appeared in 1938 in the pages of Shoujo no tomo. To see some examples of pre-war shoujo manga, check out this page on my web site: [1]
As far as I know, Nakayoshi Techou was not published in a girls' magazine. I believe it was serialized in a newspaper, but I am not sure. I have not been able to find out anything about its publication history. Hasegawa was an apprentice of the famous Suihou Tagawa before the end of the war, but I do not know of anything she published prior to Sazae-san, in 1946. Sazae-san, of course, was a newspaper strip. She did some work in girls' magazines after the war, but none of it was particularly popular. Prior to the rise of such story manga as Ribon no kishi, the most popular postwar shoujo manga was, without a doubt, Anmitsu hime. In other words, Hasegawa's place in the history of shoujo manga is extremely minor. --Matt Thorn (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where to begin?

"The concept of the "shoujo" herself, between childhood and adulthood began around the 1920s." Huh? Don't blindly take the word of academic dabblers. If the "concept" of "shoujo" didn't begin until the 1920s, then why was the first shoujo magazine, published in 1903, titled Shoujo kai (少女界, "Girls' World")? Academic hairsplitting about changes in how the word "shoujo" was perceived are utterly irrelevant to this article. I don't care that the line has a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Thorn (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Shoujo manga borrows from the earlier tradition of shoujo shousetsu - girls' fiction." Not exactly. Postwar story manga style shoujo manga borrowed from prewar shoujo shousetstu, yes. But there were manga in girls' magazines almost since the time such magazines first appeared in 1903. Shoujo shousetsu did not not appear "earlier." It's just that prior to Tezuka, shoujo shousetsu and shoujo manga were seen to have completely different purposes. Shousetsu were serious and dramatic, manga were light and humorous. --Matt Thorn (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"[...]they were all born in the 24th year of the Shōwa period (1949)" No!! In fact only a few were. They were all born around 1949. --Matt Thorn (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

God, this article is such a mess. Cleaning it up would take hours. And then I'm sure it would be a mess again in no time. One good place to start would be to strip out everything about anime. --Matt Thorn (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took the liberty of doing a major rewrite of the History section. Much more needs to be said about the history after the Year 24 Group, but this is all I have the time and energy to do for now. I feel like a jerk for adding so many references to my own work, but, well, I am considered to be the foremost expert on the subject writing in English. Also, in order to "connect the dots" in the history, I needed to say things that no one else has said in English before. Matt Thorn (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of prewar shoujo manga images to the history section. One is inarguably public domain, one is not, but fortunately I am on good terms with the Matsumoto estate and am sure they will not object. (They gave me permission to add Matsumoto images to my own web site.) I'm reluctant to add later images, because manga publishers are extremely aggressive in prosecuting perceived copyright infringement. Covers of books and magazines, however, are considered fair game even in Japan. It's interior art you have to be careful of.Matt Thorn (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I received permission from the Katsuji Matsumoto estate to use the Mysterious Clover image here.Matt Thorn (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Works aimed at this target audience are generally seen as melodramatic stories of romance usually with a female protagonist, and drawn in a flowing style where beautiful characters with huge, intricately drawn eyes become spontaneously surrounded by flowers, stars, and/or bubbles." This is awful. "generally seen"? By who? "flowing style"? What is a flowing style? The rest of this line is not a description but a caricature. Go pick up ten shoujo manga magazines on the shelves today and try to find even five works that fit that description. It might have been a somewhat accurate description of a lot of shoujo manga 30 years ago, but is certainly not today. Also, the "Garasu no kamen" might be appropriate somewhere else in the article, but a more recent, representative example (Honey and Clover, Love-Con, whatever) would be more appropriate for the top.Matt Thorn (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Took the liberty of simplifying and removing gross and outdated generalizations from the lead. Also added references. Again, I feel kind of silly referring to my own work, but I don't know of another up-to-date example of a definition from an authoritative source in English. (And, ironically, Japanese authors have never felt it necessary to define "shoujo manga.")Matt Thorn (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A separate article for anime, please!

I searched for "shojo anime" and was surprised and disappointed to find that it (still) reroutes to this article. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here when I say that manga and anime are two completely different media, produced and distributed in very different ways. A manga is produced by one artist, usually working with no more than two or three assistants, in consultation with one editor. An anime is produced by a (male-dominated) corporation, requiring hundreds of people, and is usually in "multinational" effort, which is the nicest way I can think of saying that the hard labor is outsourced to poorer countries. The fact that some anime are based on shoujo manga is irrelevant, or merits, at best, a brief mention.

<personal opinion> "Shoujo anime" is an oxymoron. When you have women directors, editors, etc., then we can talk about "shoujo anime." You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of women who hold top-ranked positions in the entire anime industry. I know of one woman who has directed short pieces for Tsuburaya Pro. Can anyone name a woman who has directed a TV anime series or theatrical release? No? I didn't think so. The anime industry--including Studio Ghibli--is an old boys club with a very thick glass ceiling. Miyazaki loves to portray strong women in his movies, but he'd sooner let his talentless son make a travesty of Earthsea than allow one of the many talented women who have toiled away for him direct something.</personal opinion>

Insisting on including anime in this article is like insisting on including, say, editorial cartoons and 4-panel newspaper manga. Or giving equal time to licensed merchandise based on characters from shoujo manga. Surely someone out there has the knowledge and savvy to begin a shoujo anime article. We're having enough trouble just getting this article up to snuff. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kazu-kun wrote:

The Japanese call it "shoujo muke anime", which just means "anime for girls", and refers to nothing more than a marketing choice; it doesn't represent a genre, nor does it have any historical background deserving encyclopedic treatment. Personally I don't see any notability at all in this concept.

I agree 100%. I have never heard the term "shoujo anime" used in Japan, and I've lived here for years, speaking regularly with fans, industry insiders, and scholars/critics. The only meaningful "genre" distinctions in the anime field I can think of are television (subdivided into categories like prime-time, late-night, Sunday morning, NHK, etc.), theatrical release, and direct-to-DVD. Something on anime based on shoujo manga should be written as a subsection of the anime article. It has no place here.Matt Thorn (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A much needed revision

The changes that MattThorn has included are much needed. This article was a disaster area among the manga/anime entries. It has a much better chance at accuracy and NPOV objectivity now. I think we should help Matt revise it, adding comments but basically staying out of his way. He's a genuine expert. I'm really pleased that he's working on this article. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also from TP: for starters, I'd recommend renaming the page "Shōjo Manga" instead of "Shōjo." By itself, "shōjo" means "girl" in Japanese (with related meanings); only in English, among otaku fans, does it refer to a genre of manga and anime marketed to girls and young women. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to get that to happen before, but people disagreed because they say it is only used to refer to manga in English. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... I'm sure you're right that people objected. But it's still wrong. Shōjo means "girl" in Japanese. I could argue that by the same token shōjo might refer to shōjo anime or shōjo novels or shōjo fashions or shōjo magazines or any other aspect of shōjo culture in Japan, including Gothic Lolita fashions. But considering that Matt suggested the same thing above, and that you and I did, and that Malkinann also seems to agree, let's say we have the start of consensus here to change the name of this article to Shōjo Manga. That way, people who disagree have to describe cogent and well-referenced arguments that shōjo all by itself and alone has in modern English come to mean shōjo manga and nothing else. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Timothy. I don't know how much time I will have to contribute to the article, but I agree, and have said in the past, that it is ridiculous to title this article "shōjo" rather than "shōjo manga." That otaku use "shōjo" as shorthand for the genre is irrelevant. It is common for English speakers to refer to Leonardo da Vinci as "Da Vinci" (e.g., "The Da Vinci Code"), but try to change the title of the Wikipedia article about him to "Da Vinci" and you would be rightly ridiculed, because "da Vinci" simply means "of/from Vinci," and would be meaningless. The seeming consensus here that the issue has been settled and "shōjo" is the proper title is frankly puzzling. Should we change the title of an article on tissues to "Kleenex," or an article on adhesive bandages to "Band Aids," just because many people use those brand names generically? This title is wrong, period. It's also embarrassing. The article is viewed by Japanese speakers, and has evoked snickers from some of them and puzzlement from all. And I've been put in the awkward position of explaining the rationale, even though I find it absurd. We should title this article properly, and add a line somewhere explaining that it is common for English-speakers to abbreviate it as "shōjo."Matt Thorn (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Shōjo → Shōjo manga — As has been mentioned above by Matt Thorn (arguably the most well-known and respected authority on shōjo manga in the English-speaking world), this article needs to be moved. While it is true that many fans abbreviate "shōjo manga" to simply "shōjo", titling this article like this is just as incorrect as naming the "hamburger" article "ham". I'm beginning to hear and see more and more people use the full title "shōjo manga" instead of the shorter—and incorrect—"shōjo" when referring to shōjo manga, and I think it's time we corrected this lapse here on Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC) — ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

What about shoujo anime? Where does that go? Is there enough scholarship out there to support a pair of separate shoujo anime and shoujo manga articles? -Malkinann (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese call it "shoujo muke anime", which just means "anime for girls", and refers to nothing more than a marketing choice; it doesn't represent a genre, nor does it have any historical background deserving encyclopedic treatment. Personally I don't see any notability at all in this concept. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion for top image

Since deciding on a single "representative" image of a genre that is by nature constantly in flux, why not change the top image regularly, using an arbitrary but objective criteria, such as the top-selling shoujo manga paperback on Amazon.co.jp? I suggest Amazon.co.jp rather than the topseller list of one of the large manga shops, because the customers of manga shops are more "otaku" than the general public, whereas Amazon.co.jp sales are more representative of all shoujo manga readers. For example, today the top-selling shoujo manga paperback (not counting vol. 21 of Nodame Cantabile, which is available for pre-order) is vol. 7 of Kimi ni todoke. The image would be the cover (which is considered fair use even by the very strict Japanese standards), and the caption would remain the same, with only the dated being changed. Something like "The top-selling shōjo manga paperback on Amazon.co.jp on July 27, 2008". The title and name of the artist would be given on the image page, and not in the caption in this article. It would be easy enough for any of the (Japanese-reading) editors to update this fairly regularly. Even just two or three times a year would be sufficient, since the purpose is simply to show something currently representative. I strongly object to the Garasu no kamen image and its caption, because it immediately gives an impression that is 30 years out of date, and the word "archetypal" contradicts the lead, which explicitly says there is no single style. Any thoughts?Matt Thorn (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the history contradicts the idea that a single style defines shōjo manga. I also like the concept of a renewed image that chararacterizes shōjo manga -- people bettter informed than I am can comment on this, but I can't remember another example of this innovative imagery within tradition. I like the idea. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The wikipedia policy on fair use pictures, WP:NFCC may prove a useful read in determining the feasibility of this proposal. Wikipedia "fair use" is stricter than legal fair use requirements. -Malkinann (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm out of my depths in terms of Wikipedia policy here. Since the point is to show a recent example, I think the "no free alternative" argument applies, and as long as we regularly delete image pages that we're done with, we can avoid running afoul of the "one article minimum" rule. We need the opinion of an administrator here, I think. Nihonjoe?Matt Thorn (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice rewrite of the Glass Mask caption, Malkinann. Thanks.Matt Thorn (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the caption more accurate now? I guessed that the Glass Mask image would be fairly representative of 70s shoujo manga, but I'm not very familiar with how it looks. -Malkinann (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It is more accurate. I can't think of a better caption that is similarly concise. Matt Thorn (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Other Series"

What is the point of this section? It is confusing and provides no useful information. If you were to try to make a list of every title or phrase that contains the word shōjo, you would end up with a very long and useless list indeed. Do you have any idea how many magazines have included the word since 1903? Probably no less than a hundred. I could probably list 50 off the top of my head. I propose removing it. I don't know if this merits the kind of survey Nihonjoe conducted for the article title change, but If there are no objections voiced in the next 48 hours or so, I am going to remove it. Matt Thorn (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Shōjo Manga

The "To-Do" list reads:

Origins of shojo we might want to examine Dollase, Hiromi (2003). "Early Twentieth Century Japanese Girls' Magazine Stories: Examining Shōjo Voice in Hanamonogatari (Flower Tales)". The Journal of Popular Culture 36 (4): 724-755. doi:10.1111/1540-5931.00043. ISSN 00223840. OCLC 1754751. (Available on Ebsco.) We may wish to also examine her Ph.D. thesis "Mad Girls in the Attic: Louisa May Alcott, Yoshiya Nobuko and the Development of Shojo Culture."

I would agree, if we are going to make the "History" section much longer, since it is somewhat tangential and open to argument. Alternatively, we could simply add the references to the line about how postwar shoujo story manga were influenced by prewar shoujo shousetsu.

By the way, it seems to me that some of the things on the "To-Do" list have been taken care of. Who is in charge of this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Thorn (talk • contribs) 11:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one could think of that particular instruction as being a hangover from when the article was called simply "shoujo", and covered shoujo manga, shoujo anime etc. Is there much scholarship out there which links pre-war shoujo shousetsu to post-war shoujo manga? If so, then we should really put that stuff in, trying to gloss over it briefly to avoid undue weight on that section. Everybody's in charge of the to do list, although it probably needs a revamp (as does the article itself). What would you put on the to do list? -Malkinann (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I discuss it in an unpublished manuscript (and in several public lectures for which I had no prepared text), and I could probably find at least two sources in Japanese on the subject, but I haven't seen Dollase's work, so I don't know if it tries to make a connection between shoujo fiction and shoujo manga. I'll do some digging.Matt Thorn (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are some scholarly English-language sources that may be helpful.
Kotani, Mari 2006 Metamorphosis of the Japanese girl: The girl, the hyper-girl, and the battling beauty. Mechademia, Volume 1, pp. 162-169.
Shamoon, Deborah 2007 Revolutionary romance: The Rose of Versailles and the transformation of shojo manga. Mechademia, Volume 2, pp. 3-17.
Toku, Masami 2007 Shojo manga! Girls' comics! A mirror of girls' dreams. Mechademia, Volume 2, pp. 19-32.
There are also some references in the History of manga article under shōjo that may be helpful. Give me a little time and I'll see if I can dig them out.
Timothy Perper (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
From TP: Toku, Masami, editor. 2005. "Shojo Manga: Girl Power!" Chico, CA: Flume Press/California State University Press. ISBN 1-886226-10-5. See also http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/cs/spring_06/feature_03.html.
Timothy Perper (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that if one or more sections gets large enough, we can always break it out into its own article, with only a summary and a link left here. There are no space limits on Wikipedia as long as there are reliable sources discussing a topic. So, I say we expound upon the topic as much as necessary, and break it out into a new article if the section starts becoming too large. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Can we get rid of the list next? See comment below. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Dollase

I've access to Dollase's article, and she says little that is directly tied to shoujo manga. She spends the essay primarily looking at "girl's culture" (shoujo bunka) in which she includes ladies' colleges (with the aim of good wife, wise mother), the translation of books (for girls' education) such as The Little Lord Fauntleroy, which introduced ideas such as "home sweet home", which she says is radically different from the 'ie' home. Little Women's tomboyish and freespirited Jo was deeply fascinating for Japanese girls, and suddenly the idea of adolescence was introduced. With the demographic comes the commercialism, such as Shoujo Kai (1902) and other magazines. Boys' magazines had adventure stories with a nationalistic undertone, girls' magazines were based on fantasies. Dollase considers the wish to take leave of reality a key feature of defining the "shoujo" herself, and that the shoujo is an artificial construct as well as a self-image. The article then introduces Yoshiya Nobuko and her story series Hanamonogatari, and explores the motif, tone, and language of some episodes of Hanamonogatari, where "Excessive emotionalism and romanticism dominate", which she compares to mono no aware. Dollase then discusses a shoujo world, an "imaginary community" of girliness, and says that the fictional shoujo are portrayed unrealistically - fictional girls do not need child-bearing hips. Dollase then goes on to criticism of Hanamonogatari, the immaturity and presence of wealth in particular, as well as a sense of the readers wallowing in grief by proxy of the characters. Dollase provides a small rebuttal, then goes on to feminism in the stories, which is that all girls must grow up and become good wives, wise mothers. Dollase explains that being a wife isn't something girls think will happen to them, she then gives an example from the story of a wife who, trapped in a loveless marriage, runs away back to school, back to the fantasy of the shoujo life. When reality can't be avoided any longer, she burns herself to death. Dollase also gives an example of a couple of typists who encounter sexual harrassment. Dollase thinks that Yoshiya's characters resist patriarchy through their emotions, through their tears. Dollase then goes on to girls' sexuality and lesbianism - girls are pretty, but they also have consciousness too. She goes on to explore S and the social ramifications of the translation of literature about sexuality into Japanese, and double suicides of "S lovers". It then goes into the depiction of permanent lesbianism as opposed to S love, and then goes on to look at the end of girlhood, and women still keep the spirit of shoujo inside them. It then briefly says "the girls' world constructed this time was destined to become the basis of future female culture and narratives in the form of manga and shoujo shosetsu and return to America, but that is a topic for next time."

Phew - if you think this is long-winded, the original article was 25 pages (not including 7 pages of notes and references). -Malkinann (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Malkinann! If anyone is interested, I can post more scholarly references about shōjo culture and history. It's a largish literature, but I'm not sure it's directly related to the shōjo manga article. Timothy Perper (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, Malkinann. Frankly, it sounds like a hodgepodge of ideas that a number of Japanese writers were saying fifteen to twenty years ago, with a bit of Western chauvinism/condescension thrown in. Trying to incorporate her paper into this article would be tricky, because for every example you could find that could be interpreted to support her argument, you could find another that seems to refute it. The problem with a lot of scholarly work in Western languages is that it is done by dilettantes with a very shallow knowledge of the genre, who make gross generalizations about the genre, its readers, and "The Japanese" based on their own interpretations of a very small sample of works. (And, surprise, surprise, that sample just happens to support their pet theory, which is a variation on a Big Theory by a Big Name.) And the problem with much Japanese writing on the subject is that it is either 1) extremely interpretative and lacking empirical evidence (which I suppose is fine for non-academic "critics"), or 2) purely empirical data collection that fails to address the all important question, "So what?" I suppose you could find examples of scholarship in both English and Japanese that illustrate the classic Gramsci/Althusser dichotomy that scholars seem never to tire to of, but I'm not sure what that would add to the article. Look at any form of popular culture, and you'll find people who argue that it perpetuates hegemony and those who argue that it subverts hegemony. (It sounds like Dollase falls into the former category.) I think the more we stick with empirical facts--historical, economic, social--the more useful and meaningful this article will be. Users can then use that as a starting point for their own research and draw their own conclusions. Matt Thorn (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
F'r'instance -- I just went through some back issues of ICv2, the manga/anime trade publication that tracks sales figures in the US. ICv2 lists the top 50 manga by US sales (in rank order, not in $ amounts or number of volumes sold) based on their own surveys. Nonetheless, the data are useful for the kind of "empirical facts" Matt is discussing -- and which we need far more than speculation or theorizing. ICv2 defines shōjo manga simply as "manga for girls," which, given their US marketing interests, means manga that appeals to young women buyers and readers regardless of the original Japanese demographic. The bottom line is that for 2005, 06, 07, and 08 the percentage of the top 50 manga that were "shōjo" increased steadily, from 28%, 38%, 42, to 44%. They conclude that manga sales in the US are being significantly driven by young women readers. IMNSHO, these are the kinds of data we need for this article. (I can supply references if anyone wants them; I would certainly include them in the article itself.) Timothy Perper (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Timothy. That's just the kind of data we need. USA Today's topseller list could be useful here, too, since it is now quite common for manga to appear on it. Also, I could write a paragraph or two on the history of shoujo manga in English.
I gather Dollase is of the opinion that girl's culture was subversive - in a sort of "you can belittle us, but you can't take away our ability to feel!" kind of a way. Does that make sense? -Malkinann (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My March 2008 paper

For what it's worth, the presentation I delivered in Paris this spring titled "The Multi-Faceted Universe of Shoujo Manga" (hey, that's the title they gave me) is now available on my website. I added the link to the reference in the article. http://matt-thorn.com/shoujo_manga/colloque/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Thorn (talk • contribs) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the Introduction

I rewrote the introduction mostly by shortening it, which focuses the topic more sharply. I also removed a comparison to boys' manga, which was a red herring, and would need its own full section somewhere later in the article (if at all). I also added a general reference (the 2005 Masami Toku book cited immediately above this comment). It's a version of Wikipedia: Be Bold. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice rewrite. Kudos! Matt Thorn (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we move the list?

The list adds very little to the article, though I suppose it's useful if one wants a list of shōjo manga magazines. I think it should be made into its own entry, as a list -- which Wikipedia has a bunch of. I myself do not know how to do that, so I'd like to ask Nihonjoe if he can assist. Then we remove the list from the present article. This is also part of Wikipedia: Be Bold. Then, of course, we have more space in this article for other content.

Opinions?

Timothy Perper (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a website that lists a good many manga magazines according to their intended sales audience. <http://users.skynet.be/mangaguide/magazines.html> It says that the last update was 2004.
Timothy Perper (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How about creating Category:Shōjo magazines as a subcategory of Category:Shōjo? Then you could just link to it from the article and the list would be unneeded. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to create a list, we need to have 2-3 (preferably more) solid sources which list the magazines as shōjo. Right now we have List of manga magazines which lists some of them, but the list is far from complete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Does that also apply to Eruhildo's suggestion for a category of shōjo magazines? Timothy Perper (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories don't generally need references, per se, but if someone questions why something is in it... ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, too. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I recommend just going with the existing list of magazines, and perhaps better organizing it. As it is, it's somewhat of a mess, IMNSHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Western adoption" section

I just tagged this section with an original research tag. The section contains some heartfelt opinions and viewpoints, but does not have sufficient references to warrant its conclusions. It also mixes up a variety of topics that are better, I think, separated for discussion -- for example, the issue of how to define shōjo manga. No matter how strongly one might defend the Wikipedia definition, others writers and critics have defined it dfferently. It is not a matter that THEY are wrong and WE are right; it's a matter of simply and neutrally describing the criteria used by different people. You can find examples and citations in note 92 of the History of manga article, which deals with the question in an NPOV fashion.

There are other problems as well, like the word "adoption" in the section title. It does not refer to the production of shōjo-esque manga in Western countries (= adoption of the style, flavor, or content of shōjo manga) nor does it deal with sales and market acceptability of shōjo manga in the West (adoption = adoption by consumers = creation of a market niche for shōjo manga).

So we need a clean-up on this section.

Timothy Perper (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an odd section of questionable value to people looking for information on the topic. It's basically a gripe session about how people don't "get it," that doesn't actually tell us about, for example, notable milestones in the history of the introduction of shoujo manga to Anglophone audiences. (And since this seems to deal primarily with the situation in English-speaking nations, "Western" is a questionable adjective.) It doesn't even mention statistics about the percentage of sales of translated manga that are shoujo manga, which would seem to be a very important bit of information. The fact that it is no longer an obscure niche market, but is given vast shelf space in major chain bookstores further would further highlight the importance of the article itself. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In one word: Yes. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

About yashii

Quoted from the "To Be Done" box:

Comments about shojo's effect on modern Japanese society, especially criticism of how it brought on the concept of yashii (優しい?). (Kinsella, Treat)
yashii = "tender; kind; gentle; graceful; affectionate; amiable; suave" (from Breen). Timothy Perper (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is so abstract and unprovable that I fail to see how it can be incorporated into this article in a meaningful way. Who is demanding all this abstract theorizing in this article? Matt Thorn (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I also see this as marginal to the article. It may well be that shōjo manga has affected social and gender conditions in Japan and elsewhere, but that is a different topic than what this article is about. Many writers, of varying knowledge and competence, have speculated about "the shōjo" and her role in Japanese society, but that's sociology and history. This article (it says) is about manga. So let's get a few more comments, and then we'll cross that one out on the To Do list. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just clear the "to do" list and start again - it was first created two years ago and contains a lot of tangential stuff about the shoujo culture, and looking for criticism where it seems little is present. I think the "to dos" about yaoi/shonen-ai would be better suited in the yaoi/shonen-ai articles. If I were to re-write the to do list, it'd go something like this:
  • More on the Year 24 Group, putting whatever we put here into their own article too.
  • Make the history longer, update for what's already passed of the 21st century (if possible)
  • Discuss organisation of the article, needed sections. We need to make sure we're covering all important aspects of shoujo manga.
  • Create summary style section on shonen-ai/yaoi/BL?
  • Find more references and see what they say
    • Incorporate references into the article
  • Discuss images to be used
  • Make the article look better, or even "perfect" (hah!)
  • Make the article comply with the Manual of Style
  • "peer review"?
  • Good Article/Featured Article?
Should we clear the to do list and start anew? -Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we copy it to the talk page part first? There are some useful comments from Matt about the list. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bounthavy Suvilay Paper

I just finished reading this paper. It's basically a summary of the "Big Three" -- Ribon no Kishi, Beresaiyu no Bara, and Shojo Kakumei Utena -- and an attempt to find basic commonalities in how transvestism, lesbianism, and shōjo representations are linked together. It has some excursions into Ranma 1/2 and Futaba-Kun Change! Like many papers written by enthusiastic fans, the paper has very little analysis, almost no history, and a lot of plot summary and details about how Oscar fell in love and how Utena battles various incarnations of Akio. There's some fairly cliched fan-level sociology (Tezuka really only reinforces gender stereotypes; Ikeda merely uses cross-dressing as a way to speak about girl's desires but nonetheless preserve normative heterosexual coupling; Saito and Ikuhara intend kakumei (= "revolution") to mean that Prince Charming is dead) but I was not convinced that the argument applies to the three narratives discussed nor to shōjo manga in general.

By "Big Three," I mean that a great many people have recognized that these three stories have a great deal in common. In fact, it's pretty obvious. But a serious critical analysis of their similarities, differences, and meanings needs to go a lot further than this paper does. If you need a reference that says that Beresaiyu no Bara, and Shojo Kakumei Utena both have a lot to do with roses, this is the paper you want. If you want to know what the roses mean, or why Maria-sama ga Miteru also has roses, then you'll have to go elsewhere.

By "thin," I mean that it's mostly plot summaries. For example, it says: "Les bishônen ne sont donc que des figures symboliques du désir féminin" = "Bishonen are therefore only characters symbolizing feminine desire." That doesn't mean that girls desire the bishonen hero; instead, it means that the bishonen character is the female reader transformed and turned into a symbol. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't -- maybe the bishonen symbolizes the object of the woman's desire or maybe he symbolizes the woman herself (but transformed) or maybe both or maybe something else... Whichever, the paper doesn't develop or delineate or the idea any further -- and hence is "thin."

It's not a bad paper, it's simply marginal to our purposes. The moral is that not every enthusiastic paper on the web warrants a citation in this article.

Here's the full reference. Suvilay, Bounthavy 2003 L'hérone [sic] travestie dans le shôjo manga: entre création d'un genre et revendication féministe. Image & Narrative: Online Magazine of the Visual Narrative. http://www.imageandnarrative.be/graphicnovel/bounthavysuvilay.htm

Timothy Perper (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Old "To Do" list

Historical note: This list came from Talk:Shōjo_manga/to_do before it was cleared. -Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! Timothy Perper (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Lead is way too long. Shorten it and intergate excess stuff into history section.
  • Get rid of unsourced statements which are not known to generally be facts. (i.e. the Meiji note.)
What Meiji note? Can someone explain? Timothy Perper (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus seems to be that these are marginal papers for this entry. Add citations and information about how shojo is influenced by feminist movements. See: Japanese Subculture in the 1990s: Otaku and the Amateur Manga Movement, by Sharon Kinsella published in Journal of Japanese Studies in 1998. (Available on JSTOR) and L'héroïne travestie dans le shôjo manga : entre création d'un genre et revendication féministe Author: Bounthavy Suvilay Published: October 2003 Open access at Image & Narrative
Establishing an objectively verifiable connection between shoujo manga and feminism is difficult, because of the diversity of the genre, and differing ideas among Japanese self-described feminists as to what constitutes feminism. I spent a decade or so trying to establish a clear connection, and don't have much to show for it. It is rare to meet a shoujo manga artist (and I've met plenty) who will say, "Yes, I put a feminist message in my work." I can think of one offhand: Minori Kimura (樹村みのり), and she didn't start doing that until very late in her career. Obviously there is implicit feminism to be found everywhere, not least of all in the fact that the improved social status of women allowed women artists to take over the genre in the 1970s, but manga editors (and readers, and artists) tend to be wary of anything overtly ideological (Yoshinori Kobayashi notwithstanding). I'm a longtime feminist myself, but I don't see why this belongs in the "To Do" list, unless it is an outdated reference to an unreferenced claim about such a connection that has since been deleted. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I went through the Bounthavy paper. It's also of marginal interest; see notes below. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Suzuki (who is already cited in yaoi) explicitly links feminism to the yaoi movement, (as a sort of sex-positive feminism perhaps?) she reckons it explores "ideal relationships" as a backlash to a sexist society, and that suddenly, women had the power to objectify men. She also says that once women started objectifying men, the males depicted changed from the willowy type to a more realistically male type. She characterises the use of rape in yaoi as being a way to subvert the stigma attached to female victims as they show the male victim being innocent, she also considers that yaoi makes fun of male sexuality and takes revenge on men. She also notes that depictions of mothers in yaoi are extremely negative and does a comparison of Captain Tsubasa yaoi with Kirk/Spock hurt/comfort fiction. -Malkinann (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I can't remember if I wrote about it anywhere, but I came away from one Comic Market back around 1995 with the strong impression that yaoi was therapeutic for at least some of its fans. I had picked up a poorly drawn but extremely powerful original work by an unknown doujinshi artist that was, to my mind, obviously the artist's way of working through her own experience of abuse. My colleague Keiko Takemiya wrote a brief essay a long time ago that argues that shounen ai is a first step towards feminism. Critic and scholar Yukari Fujimoto, too, has written about the meaning of shounen ai/yaoi and its relationship to feminism. I suppose I do, too, in my article "Girls and Women Getting Out of Hand." But these are all specific to the boys' love phenomenon. When speaking of shoujo manga generally, the tricky thing is precisely the wide range of themes. Some are conservative to the point of being reactionary, others are progressive if not radical. The only generalization that can be made, I think, is Fujimoto's assertion that shoujo manga are a mirror reflecting the hearts of girls. What is reflected in that mirror is as diverse as the girls who read them, and changes and society changes. Hmm. I suppose I could work what I just wrote into something that could be worked into the section defining what shoujo manga are. Clearly, feminism is pertinent. The question is how to incorporate it in a way that avoids gross generalizations, refers to specific arguments, and presents those arguments not as "truth" but as educated opinions/interpretations. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Shojo in the "pure literature" and Banana Yoshimoto Yoshimoto Banana Writes Home: Shojo Culture and the Nostalgic Subject, by John Whittier Treat in the Journal of Japanese Studies (JSTOR.)
Why should this be included in this article? Matt Thorn (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Include information on the Yaoi sub-genre and similar statements. Contrast the male characters with the often macho male leads of shonen comics. Explain how they differ. (See Kinsella.)
Kinsella!? Matt Thorn (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Include information on doujinshi and comiket and how they both helped to create the modern shojo movement (See Kinsella.)
Again I ask, Kinsella!? No offense, but it is my not so humble opinion that what Kinsella knows about the world of yaoi and doujinshi could fit on a postage stamp. And sorry to toot my own horn here, but I wrote an article on the subject based on years of fieldwork. <personal opinion>Kinella's Adult Manga is not only smugly anti-feminist (and arguably misogynist, completely dismissing josei manga as insignificant), but it is riddled with factual errors.</personal opinion> Matt Thorn (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reduce or eliminate "Shōjo Magazines in Japan" section. Categorize, prune into the most notable titles, and/or made seperate page.
  • Comments about shojo's effect on modern Japanese society, especially criticism of how it brought on the concept of yashii (優しい). (Kinsella, Treat)
yashii = "tender; kind; gentle; graceful; affectionate; amiable; suave" (from Breen). Timothy Perper (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is so abstract and unprovable that I fail to see how it can be incorporated into this article in a meaningful way. Who is demanding all this abstract theorizing in this article?Matt Thorn (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Find more sources from MLA International Bibliography and elsewhere.
If you need Japanese language sources, I can provide a list as long as my (rather long) arm. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New "To Do" list

I've been bold and cleared the old "To Do" list, and I think we should talk about what we should put on the new "To Do" list. I've outlined what I think should go in the new "To Do" list in #About yashii above, does anyone have any comments on that, or any other ideas for what could go in the new to do list? -Malkinann (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Get a list of general topics we need to cover, and separate out the Wiki-isms (like getting a peer review and formatting the references). Those can, I think, come later.
History -- expand. We might be able to borrow stuff from the History of manga article.
Haha. I was actually suppressing my impulse to write about three or four times as much detail as I did. Isn't there a separate article on the 24 Year Group? God, I'm afraid to look at it. Obviously, we need to write a lot more on the post-24-Year-Group history. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Subgenres -- not the best word, but a couple of paragraphs that represent the range and variety of shōjo manga. I want to forestall cliches about romances and girls with big eyes.
This is tricky. Someone noted on the shounen ai discussion page that Boys' Love is a clearly defined publishing category, but other sub-genres are not so sharply defined. Humor, sci-fi, fantasy, sports, pornography (I mean porn geared at teens, not adult women), etc. One way around rying to provide definitions would be to simply list, say, five different currently popular or critically acclaimed shoujo manga, and point out the diversity they represent. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Reception -- again, not the best word, but this will deal with the immense world-wide popularity of shōjo manga. For example, the stuff I posted from ICv2 about the increase in shōjo manga market in the US.
I have plenty of data I collected myself on Japanese shoujo manga readers...but unfortunately it's more than a decade out of date. Sales figures for magazines in Japan are easy to obtain. Sales of specific paperback titles, too. The big gap in the data, though, is paperback sales by category (shoujo, shounen, etc.). For some reason, the Science of Publishing people don't tally that data. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me think about this some more. And, once again, Malkinann, thanks for removing the old to-do list!
Timothy Perper (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought I tried to move the Wiki niceties to the bottom of the list (signifying the last things to do)? I kind of figure that if the article's going to have a lot of scholarship put into it, it might as well eventually seek some wiki-recognition in the form of GA/FA. -Malkinann (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as someone includes references, I'm happy to help go through them and format them properly. I've done that on many articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I set up a new To-Do list based on the discussions above. The purpose is to stimulate discussion and get more ideas -- these are NOT my pet hobbyhorses. Cross stuff out, add new material, and so on. A topic I didn't include -- a section on shōjo mangaka. It'd be endless and it's better to direct readers to individual articles about the artists. Over to everyone else!
Yes, Malkinann, you did separate them -- sorry if I didn't seem to know that. I was just trying to reinforce your idea. And thanks, Nihonjoe!
Timothy Perper (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Social background of shōjo manga: feminism, changes in women's roles since WW2 and since the collapse of the bubble economy; the role of "shōjo culture" and of fashion (oshare) manga. Need verifiable sources and objective, NPOV summaries of different and contrasting viewpoints especially by Japanese writers." This should not be so hard. I can think of a few things by Japanese writers that would fit. But for the most part, I have never been impressed by all the writings on "shoujo culture," which seem to be more about the fantasies or preconceptions of the writer than actual Japanese girls' lived experiences. (Books about "shoujo culture" were quite the fad in the 1990s--I've got at least five on my bookshelf--but I haven't seen anything new recently.) Some of it seems like downright fetishism. But if I come across something "respectable" that seems relevant to this article, I'll mention it whether I agree with it or not. Matt Thorn (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
True... but the stuff exists and I think we need to mention it in as neutral a way as possible. I think we need to sandbox this new material before adding it directly to the article. Please look at the next comment to see what I mean. Sandboxing saves an immense amount of trouble. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shōjo_manga/Archive_2&oldid=1066693725"