Do you consider manga literature?

[Clover_K]

Manga and anime has invaded the word of art already. It is the age of Animeism, I think. (We have Romanticism, Surrealism, etc., why not Animeism? :lol:)
For literature, I don't think manga will define our age. But has it gained recognition as literature? In Japan it might. But how about the rest of the world?
So... what do you think?

[Clover_K]

I post this thread in the wrong forum. :( It should be in general literature forum. Anyone know how to delete a post? It's my first day in this forum so sorry for being such a rookie. ^^;

[Redzeppelin]

Don't worry about it...everybody here can claim some sort of "oops."

Manga and anime are artistic styles of rendering the human form; literature is a designation for a class of writing. I don't see a connection between the two, except that you can use the artistic syle of manga to render a literature story in visual terms. But the style itself cannot be literature. From what I've seen of manga and anime, I'm not sure I would count them as literature.

Welcome to Lit Net :)

[Clover_K]

No, the style itself isn't literature. But what I mean is, can a piece of manga like Death Note, which deals with the eternal issue of corruption of humans with power, be considered literature?

[Walter]

I would prefer the inclusive use of the word literature for accepting all sorts in, instead of its exclusionary use for ruling kinds out.
Is a beautifully illustrated version of Treasure Island literature?
Is Treasure Island itself literature?
Is children's literature literature? Or only children's books?
Are written books literature?
So I think there are many kinds of literature if one wishes to distinguish them.
And if by literature one means "good" literature, then it is not too much trouble to add the adjective. And then discuss "quality" and whether manga is "good literature" or "manga literature."
So, yes manga is literature (and I think the quality varies).

[jekan blazer]

No, the style itself isn't literature. But what I mean is, can a piece of manga like Death Note, which deals with the eternal issue of corruption of humans with power, be considered literature?

yes, it can... and i feel that it is... you see, i am a big fan of manga and it has storylines, multiple genres, a flowing set of series, and much more to offer than a comic book... death note is no different than books like the harry potter series, or the pendragon series, which all deal with similar issues... corruption and powers!!! manga is more like graphic novels, like watchmen...

[The Comedian]

Manga and anime are artistic styles of rendering the human form; literature is a designation for a class of writing. I don't see a connection between the two, except that you can use the artistic syle of manga to render a literature story in visual terms. But the style itself cannot be literature.

I agree completely with your distinction between an artistic convention and the idea of "literature" which is really a word used to describe the quality of an artistic convention.

To the OP's question -- sure manga can be literature. I've read some of it, including parts of the Death Note series that you mention in a separate post. But, like everything else, only very little of manga will be of lasting literary worth.

Few standard "books" are considered literature, so it stands to reason that few works of manga will receive that mantel as well.

Scott McCloud wrote/drew this idea well here:

http://gangles.ca/images/UnderstandingComics2.jpg

And if you haven't read his Understanding Comics, you should. It's a must read for anyone who comes to comics/manga with a literary mind.

[JBI]

Definitely, if the content bends. For instance, there is a graphic novel-biography (non fiction) of the life of Luis Riel which has received a great deal of praise and critical study within academic circles. That easily can be read as a literary hybrid, in the sense that William Blake reads as a literary hybrid, though Blake is at a different level, being that the text is complimented by the image, and not an aspect of the image.

As a form, the concept of a manga is interesting. I'm not to sure about Japanese Manga, but from what I understand here, the content is generally juvenile, or horribly perverted in the most disturbing of ways. In essence, it is merely another mode, and therefore functions as any medium, except it reads as both still life capturing, and text, which creates a strange sort of hybridity. The text perhaps conveys a different narrative than the image, or compliments it, whereas the text in a pure text ultimately must contain the whole narrative within itself, and its delivery. The direct exposure to the diegesis of the text perhaps complicates the concept of "literary narration", being that it ultimately brings things closer to the narrative of a painting, but the series of them perhaps reforms an order.

As for it being literature, perhaps not. I think it has much potential, and would like to see more experimentation outside of popular culture, but for the moment, it seems a genre rooted within a whole other tradition than literary texts.

As for it being of high quality - like all art forms, it has the potential to be mediocre or great, popular or unpopular, and everything in between. I've seen a Manga rendition of the Bible meant, for instance, as a propaganda tool to lure kids into Christianity. On the other hand, Sailor Moon (I know, I keeping coming back to this, but that is because my knowledge of Anime is very, very limited) functions as a strong (albeit highly flawed) feminist narrative that shows the potential for a strong culturally relevant, feminist bildungsroman within the genre.

Of course, there is the backside of it too - all that weird pornographic content that pervades a great number of those books (is book the right term?), but that just seems an extension of the undergenre of erotica that is present in text too.

As a form, I would be interested in people doing more serious work (or perhaps me getting more exposure to more serious work). Evidently my knowledge is quite limited (and probably will stay quite limited until, 6-10 years from now, I start learning Japanese) but even so, the only possible problem I can see with it, is that the narrative is too visual, which creates too decisive a reaction on the reader, and doesn't leave much room for self creation - but even that can be remedied, or isn't necessarily a set back.

Who knows though - I'm very interested in genre-crossing forms, but (perhaps) unfortunately, I probably won't delve into Manga, because pure narrative like that isn't really my primary concern right now as a reader, and quite simply, I'm having enough difficulty learning different textual genre and features.

[mono]

Like most people here, I have not explored very much manga, more passing it by on bookstore shelves. The question as to whether we ought to consider it literature has a few contingencies in it, such as asking the definition of literature, what allegedly proven genres of literature have in common, what types of writings one would not consider literature, since I think it easy to say that we could not say that everything written on paper and printed seems literary in nature (such as setup instructions for a DVD player or a wordsearch puzzle), and what limitations exist in what we can consider literature and what we cannot label as literature. In essence, such a question has more a basis in opinion than fact, since I would not call literature a science, and we cannot call manga literature or not in the same way as we call a spider an arachnid rather than an insect.
From what very limited amounts of manga I have seen, their stories tend to have a plot, there can sometimes exist some elementary symbolism, it consists mostly of dialogues, and has enough sexual overtones to make Marques de Sade blush; from what I understand, it has existed much longer in Japan than meets the eye, such as how long it has gained some international fame (for example, I just mentioned passing it by from time to time in an American bookstore). Personally, I would not call it my favorite area of printed materials, but I could honestly see no reason why I could not call it literature, so long as we call things like Batman comics, plays, and illustrated stories literature and fiction, but, again, I base this more upon opinion than fact; try to call a whale a fish, and not a mammal, to a biologist, and that seems another subject. This demonstrates quite well the slippery slopes in defining literature; I would not call myself one to push limits, but the writers of manga have defined another limit in the same way, undoubtedly, and I make a broad comparison here, as writers like Walt Whitman did for writing free-verse in Western poetry.

[Emil Miller]

Here is Wikipedia's description of literature. On which basis manga cannot be considered as such, for the description does not mention or imply an acquaintance with pictures.

Literature is the art of written works. Literally translated, the word means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter),

[mono]

Here is Wikipedia's description of literature. On which basis manga cannot be considered as such, for the description does not mention or imply an acquaintance with pictures.

Literature is the art of written works. Literally translated, the word means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter),
Slightly vague definition, but interesting. :nod: According to this definition, however, editions of literature that received publications with illustrations (Dr. Seuss, A.A. Milne, editions of Paradise Lost/Regained and The Divine Comedy with etchings by Gustave Doré, the Moby Dick edition illustrated by Rockwell Kent, etc.), but, I agree, manga has illustrations everywhere, and serves a great importance in its storytelling, while thus mentioned works have pictures more as details and backups than responsibility in the stories. Does this definition, however, exclude things like Batman, Superman, Garfield, and Peanuts from the literature categories, since they all bear strong acquaintances with pictures and illustrations?
Thanks for researching that, Brian Bean - interesting.
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature) has a slightly lesser impressive definition:

–noun
1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.
Under the 'Synonyms' section, Dictionary.com further details:

1. Literature, belles-lettres, letters refer to artistic writings worthy of being remembered. In the broadest sense, literature includes any type of writings on any subject: the literature of medicine; usually, however, it means the body of artistic writings of a country or period that are characterized by beauty of expression and form and by universality of intellectual and emotional appeal: English literature of the 16th century. Belles-lettres is a more specific term for writings of a light, elegant, or excessively refined character: His talent is not for scholarship but for belles-lettres. Letters (rare today outside of certain fixed phrases) refers to literature as a domain of study or creation: a man of letters.
A bit more specific, but it does not quite hold true to my ideas of literature - interesting to read about anyway. The part about "artistic writings worthy of being remembered" really hit home for me, however, as this has a very humanistic quality to it, since each individual ought to judge for her/himself what deserves remembrance and what should rot with age. In modern literature, who judges that John Updike has earned more rights to remembrance than manga, Ayn Rand over Stan Lee, Gore Vidal over Charles Schulz? Sentiment, rather than something measured.

[The Comedian]

In comics, such as manga, we need to remember that the images are meant to be read, not merely looked at as a colorful background that parallels the words.

I mean, heck, what's a word but a picture? What's a word but a symbol? And a drawing that's meant to be read in sequence to progress a narrative? Sounds a lot like a word to me.

So, that the presence of "pictures" in a text would lead one to discount the work as having lasting literary merit is. . . .absurd (I wish I had something more witty to say here than "absurd", but I just can't think of something at the moment).

And using the fact that an art form employs more than a single method to covey meaning as an argument to discount its credibility could be leveled against theater and film, which employ an ever greater range of media (word, image, music) to convey meaning.

I see it this way: comics & manga are books; some books demonstrate a lasting skill or meaning or value that goes beyond the simple pleasures of the minute, which broadly constitutes a definition of literature. If, as time progresses, some comics books and manga books seem to have these values, then literature they are.

Good Hunting!

EDIT: And if they don't fit the "definition" literature, then I say it's time to take a chainsaw and lipstick to the definition for a little makeover.