Talk:Shōjo manga/Archive 3

More Ideas (and a Request)
The request first -- if we put our comments into old comments, we end up with long divergent tendrils of thought that are very interesting but very hard to find. Can we put these new ideas into their own main headings? Like this one -- thus.

Above, Matt Thorn and Malkinann wrote:


 * 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)

My experience working (fairly extensively) with the Manga and History of manga articles is that these problems are easier to solve than they might sound. The trick is to reference everything. For example, in the (perhaps misnamed?) "Before World War II" section, I cited a number of critics and writers whose opinions about the origins of manga differed considerably. Some see manga as originating primarily after WW2 with Tezuka and his followers; others see a long history going back to the toba-e of 800 years ago. Each of the authors I cited got a small paragraph of their own, summarizing their ideas with one or more references. The overall effect is of diversity of expert opinion and a strong NPOV tone to the section. (I had some fellow experts vet the section before I put it up, BTW.) Is the section perfect? Of course not, but it sets up solid structure for dealing with divergent views in which I, the author, do NOT insert my own crackpot opinions and original research.

Thus, the section in this article might begin, with made up references


 * "Critics and historians differ in how they see the relationship between shōjo manga and Japanese culture in general. . Nakamura has argued that XYZ whereas Takeshi has stressed the importance of PQR. "

And so on until the main authors and points are all covered. It's like writing a summary literature review for any scholarly paper. Then someone whom I will name Kwodbog6 comes along and says, in thinly disguised annoyance, that Nakamura really was stressing the importance of U and W, and that Takeshi is a total ignorant moron and that the ONLY accurate and true statement is from Collander who said KLMN. Well, not a problem. We politely thank Kwodbog6, and ask him (on Wiki, Kwodbog6 is usually a he) for a verifiable citation to where Nakamura says U and W and to where Collander said KLMN. We also tell Kwodbog6 that Wikipedia is not the place to call people names and that his comment about Takeshi isn't "encyclopedic" or is "original research." Then (if we're lucky) Kwodbog6 fills in some references, More likely, however, is that Kwodbog6 merely backs off.

Why is this important? Because this article, like manga and History of manga, needs not opinions like Kwodbog6's but verifiable quotations and genuine citations. Kwodbog6 has a perfect right to his opinions -- on his own website or blog, but not on Wikipedia. Here we have to cite stuff and remain NPOV.

Matt wrote above: ''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."''

Here it is in the form I just illustrated with some wikifications.


 * Keiko Takemiya has argued that shonen ai manga is a first step towards feminism and others have commented on the relationship between feminism and shōnen ai manga and YAOI.

It's clear, I hope, that we can now add a sentence about Takemiya, Fujimoto, or Thorn and keep the same terse but clear style.

Now a technique for doing this without messing up the article with constant re-editings. Matt, I'll assist you with this if you like. Basically, we set up a so-called "sandbox" page on our own user page, and do all this writing and editing on the sandbox copy. Then, when that copy is finalized, we simply copy and paste it into this article. This works very well and allows other people to contribute to the work in progress.

Here's an example of how a sandbox works: User:Timothy_Perper/Sandbox2. It shows how Peregrine Fisher and I put together a section of the manga entry with comments, observations, and suggestions.

I hope this helps.

Timothy Perper (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great advice, Timothy. Thank you. Let's sandbox away. But I think stuff specific to shounen-ai/yaoi/BL should go in the Yaoi article, rather than here. There's more than enough stuff on shoujo manga in general. Yukari Fujimoto is a must. Though not a scholar per se (she's an editor at Chikuma Shobou Publishing and graduate of Tokyo University), she is the preeminent writer on shoujo manga, IMO. I'll start gathering relevant arguments and references, but I don't know how quickly I can do it, since I'm on sick leave, all my books are in my office, and I don't know when I'll have a chance to go get them. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a sandbox! What fun! User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 1 So are we talking about a new section here, such as Shōjo manga in Japanese society? That's sounds broad enough to accommodate both social theory and statistical data. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for proposed new section, "Shōjo Manga in Japanese Society"
User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 1 Feel free to add anything, including random thoughts on the topic. This would be a good place to list any English- or Japanese-language articles or books on shoujo manga, so we have a good-sized body of works to reference. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Circulations
I added a section on circulations, just as I did on the josei manga page. I asked there so I'll ask here, too: is the comparative info overkill? Matt Thorn (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fine. Leave it in. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential resource?
Is this any good? I found it via a paper on romance in Banana Yoshimoto's early work, and it seems to be from an .edu address...-Malkinann (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be an unreferenced and a more-or-less personal view of shojo manga. I wouldn't use it as a primary source but it's interesting as something a knowledgeable fan has written. The other paper, by Sanchez about Yoshimoto, is a scholarly paper. Timothy Perper (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Further googling suggests that Kumiko Sato (who got her PhD from Pennsylvania State University, where the site was located) has presented a paper at Japan Sessions, and it seems like she is an Assistant Professor at Earlham College - she's not just a knowledgeable fan now. ^^ Not to sound tendentious or anything, but is the site too early/raw a work to be used as a source? It seems like Sato must have made it during her PhD? -Malkinann (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Too early, I'd say, at least if it's used as an authoritative source. However, that's a personal evaluation, since I prefer papers/summaries/essays to have references. I think you're right about it being done earlier in her career. It'd be useful here on Wiki if you have other sources for the same history because then you could include it as one of several references. Her paper at Japan Sessions is more general, trying to deal with authorship in the era of the internet. I'd like to see the complete papers for both of them. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a decent article on Shojo that discusses the early history and some history in the US along with sales figures from 2005. http://www.wiretapmag.org/stories/24174 -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't say I agree. The article repeats the just-won't-die myth that shōjo manga started with Princess Knight (Who started this myth anyway? It wasn't even the first shōjo manga that Tezuka created.), then glosses over the subsequent history in a single sentence. I'm guessing the writer was relying on the Wikipedia article as it was in 2005. The article reads almost like a Viz promo piece. (And I say that as someone who wrote a great many Viz promo pieces.) The statistics might be useful, but since the U.S. market has been in major flux for a decade, a source for more recent figures would be preferable.
 * On the Japan side, I just posted the most recent statistics about Japanese women's manga reading on my blog, here and here. I plan to add statistics on Japanese girls' reading practices soon. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Shojo and Adult Women: A Linguistic Analysis of Gender Identity in Manga (Japanese Comics) - found this whilst looking up shoujou. What do we think about the article? -Malkinann (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just skimming through it, I find several problems with the study. First is the choice of magazines. It gives me the impression that the writer is not an expert on manga by any means. The "ladies manga" (as she calls them) magazines she chose appeal to a very conservative demographic. The readers of those magazines are mostly women who have chosen conservative lifestyles. They are either full-time housewives or non-career-oriented "office ladies" who plan to become housewives as soon as they find a husband who can support them. A better sample would have included such adult women's manga magazines as Chorus or Feel Young. The shōjo magazines, too, are clearly chosen by someone whose image of shōjo manga magazines was formed some 30 years ago. Hana to Yume is borderline otaku, and not really representative of the mainstream. Nakayoshi and Ribon have followed the lead of Ciao and are targeting preteens. The Margaret is the only one here widely read by "average" teens and young women, but since it is all short love stories, mostly by rookies, it is a curious choice. Bessatsu Margaret would be much more representative of teen readers. I have always had doubts about this sort of "tally up the instances of (fill in the blank) and draw generalizations" study. (Linguists in particular seem fond of such studies.) There is too much left out. For example, the author doesn't seem to account for ironic usage of strongly feminine or strongly masculine forms. And strongly feminine language by no means automatically implies submissiveness. Strongly feminine language can be used to verbally skewer someone without actually violating social protocol explicitly. But it is true that it is older women who are better at using it. This is partly due to life experience (older women have more experience using language) and partly generational (younger Japanese are more relaxed about language use than are previous generations). But the author does acknowledge some of these things in her conclusion. If the question is, "Do you agree with her conclusions?" my answer is, "Not so much." If the question is, "Does this article meet a minimum of academic standards and constitute citable scholarship?" my answer is "Yes." Matt Thorn (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving your thoughts on it. I suppose the question I should have asked is "Does it say anything interesting?" or "Does it say anything that we really ought to be putting in the shoujo manga / josei manga articles?"  So far, I've gleaned that adult female characters talk more ladylike than younger female characters...  I'd imagine that was common knowledge. -Malkinann (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FEMALE PROTAGONISTS IN SHŌJO MANGA – FROM THE RESCUERS TO THE RESCUED - looks at feminist issues in shoujo manga - chiefly romance and independence. Is this interesting for the shoujo manga article? -Malkinann (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Shojo manga: 26 out of the top 50
Yo, folks -- in ICv2's most recent top 50 manga in US sales, shojo manga has 26 titles. They are from Viz, TokyoPop, and Del Rey. The top shojo manga is "Fruits Basket," followed by "Vampire Knight," "Absolute Boyfriend," and "Ouran High School Host Club." Way to go, shojo manga!

"Shojo series shine; ICv2 top 50 manga properties." ICv2 Guide, #57, September/October, 2008. pages 6, 8-9.

Timothy Perper (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't remember where I heard it, but I've had the impression that shoujo manga have accounted for a majority of manga sales in the U.S. for several years. It's too bad stats about tankoubon sales divided by shounen/shoujo/seinen/josei aren't available for the Japanese market. (Such stats are available for magazines, though.) Matt Thorn (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my impression as well. And certainly the way the ICv2 writers describe it, it's theirs as well -- and this time, the top 50 list went to 26/50 for shoujo manga. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Comics Journal, a few years ago, posted an article called She's Got Her Own Thing Now, in which Dirk Deppey says that shoujo manga have picked up the girls' market where Western comics largely fail. And then there's that interesting tidbit about Harlequin(!) beginning to publish manga-style romance comics.-Malkinann (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ōzora Publishing has been publishing manga versions of Harlequin romances for almost a decade now, if I'm not mistaken. I seem to remember talking with an Ōzora editor and hearing that an attempt at "reverse importing" of the manga-fied Harlequins for an American audience fell flat. It seems there is little overlap in the market for shoujo manga in the U.S. and the market for Harlequin romances in the U.S.. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? The Dark Horse Publishing citation that's currently in the article gives the impression that it's a newish thing.  This (2006) suggests that the Harlequin OEL manga might find an audience of twelve year old girls, hehe. -Malkinann (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture
Mark Schilling. The Encyclopedia of Japanese Pop Culture. Weatherhill, 1997. 344 pgs. Comics for girls, shojo manga, were long second-class citizens in the manga world. Most of the big-name manga artists of the 1950s and 1960s were men who targeted their work at a primarily male audience. Though the "god of manga," Osamu Tezuka, created a popular early girls' comic, Ribbon no Kishi (Princess Knight), the typical shojo manga, whose heroine was forever fluttering her huge, glittering eyes and whose story was full of perfervid romance, did not inspire a great deal of admiration in the manga community. (page 206). Useful, I think. Also, about The Rose of Versailles: But though it may have disrupted some classes, The Rose of Versailles began appearing in others; the manga's liberal use of carefully researched historical facts inspired teachers to select it as a supplementary text and schools to purchase it for their libraries--a Japanese educational first. Also, the popularity of the manga generated an upsurge in the numbers of students in French language and literature classes and tourists bound for France, with Versailles as the first stop on their itinerary. (page 207-208) -- deerstop. 09:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

other coverage
Japan Book News #56 see page 12-13 from the Japan Foundation. --KrebMarkt 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Page 14 has an article about Tezuka, too. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoujo anime
So, shoujo anime redirects here, but apart from overlaps that are obvious only to those who already know about the genre, there is zero mention on the entire page of anime. It's not unreasonable to combine the two -- after all there *is* considerable overlap, even down to the actual stories, what with anime to manga and manga to anime transplants. However, if you're going to treat them both in a single page, shouldn't there be some mention of the concept of shoujo anime and some notable examples, at the very least? 80.101.113.45 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Shōjo manga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150316192926/http://www.matt-thorn.com/shoujo_manga/prewar_shoujo/index.php to http://www.matt-thorn.com/shoujo_manga/prewar_shoujo/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)