On the “Fundamentals of Manga Writing”
After receiving a review copy of the second volume, Scott VonSchilling (Anime Almanac) wrote a review of Yokaiden without first reading the first in the series. I know nothing about Yokaiden, beyond what I read in Scott’s review, but that is irrelevant here. The focus here is on the idea of reviewing something without starting from the beginning.
This is far from a new concept, and reviewers have been doing this for quite some time. Here is an excerpt of a review of the final volume (28) of Rurouni Kenshin by Michael Aronson (Manga Life):
“The much-touted ending of the much-touted action series has arrived, and this first-time reader isn’t impressed. Granted, the ending isn’t always the best place to begin, but it’s often an ending can be so powerfully loaded with meaning and implications that it can immediately spark interest.”
Okay, so the reviewer does mention that he has no prior experience with the series, and does a good job of analyzing it from that standpoint throughout the review. However, I do not feel that a work should be judged from the end or just a piece. A story is the accumulation of the beginning, end, and all in between. A story is made of the progression of events until the final point. During this time- key plot points arise, the characters may develop, hints at future events could be made, and much more act together to create one whole. I’ll use a few examples to illustrate my point:
An obvious example would be to read the end of a murder mystery. The key point of the plot is the suspense and build-up, while analyzing the clues in the story, until the climax where the mystery is revealed. It doesn’t have to be something that clear though; the same could be said for a slice of life series. If you haven’t been introduced to the setting and gotten to know the characters from the beginning, then you aren’t likely to care or really appreciate what is going on. This could be applied to all but the most episodic of series. To draw out a piece of a story and pass judgment on its quality is disrespect to the author’s intentions.
Continuing with some things Scott mentioned in his Yokaiden review:
“So I decided to give in to the hype and dive into the second volume from this award-winning artist. After all, I did the same thing when I reviewed Black Jack vol. 5 earlier this year without reading the earlier volumes, and I still enjoyed that series.”
Osamu Tezuka’s Black Jack is a highly episodic series. Each chapter is an independent tale based around events that the protagonists are involved in. With only a few references to back-story, the reader will have enough knowledge to follow and enjoy the work. It is neither fair, nor sensible, to compare that reading experience to a fully ongoing plot such as Yokaiden’s. This is the same as comparing watching a chapter of Yotsuba to a random chapter of Full Metal Alchemist. It just doesn’t make sense. Also, reviewing should be of a higher standard than just being able to enjoy it. Despite a series’ possible friendliness towards late readers, judgment shouldn’t be made without the beginning. Unless, the ease of getting into late is a point of the review itself, but this should be separate from a firm verdict on the entire work.
“So is it the artist’s fault that I couldn’t get into volume two? Is it really a requirement for a reader to have read the previous volumes of a manga series in order to enjoy it?
Well, no. The artist should not expect that of the reader. That goes against one of the fundamentals of manga writing.”
Prepare yourself for one of the “fundamentals of manga writing”:
“The thing about Japanese manga is that most of them are serialized chapter-by-chapter in manga magazines. That means that the artist cannot expect the reader to have read all the previous chapters, as it is highly likely that the reader has missed [an] issue or is picking the magazine up for the first time.”
Okay, I can see where Scott is coming from, and he has a point that accessibility is important in a serialized work. However to decide that it is a fundamental of manga is a ridiculous blanket statement. This is claiming that manga should lack the complexity that would keep it from being easily comprehensible with just a few subtle references and explanations. Should a manga such as Urusawa’s Pluto (which Scott claims to have enjoyed) be “dumbed down” so anyone can enjoy it from any starting point? This would be a nonsensical claim. The same could be said for any work of a sufficiently complex plot.
“Besides this tone, I just couldn’t connect with anything to this story, from the characters to the humor. But I know that this was all highly praised by other critics. When I posted this disconnect to the twitter community, the response I got from everyone – including the artist herself – is that I needed to have read the first volume to get what was happening.”
The fact that manga are serialized does not make them different from any other ongoing series, whether it is television, films, books, or Western comics. The anime series Serial Experiments Lain is a highly complicated story that many consider to be extremely confusing even from the beginning. Obviously starting in midway is going to create even more confusion. There is no way this could be avoided without completely changing what the show is. Is it a “rookie mistake” that Chiaki J. Konaka and the others made this critically acclaimed classic the way it is? Obviously not. What VonSchilling is saying would be more applicable to a long running series such as long running shounen or shoujo series. Naruto is bound to attract viewers at any given time over the many years of its run. It is simplistic enough story that enough flashbacks and references will guide the reader along to understanding the current plot events. Still, I am sure that the reader would benefit even further from reading a few of the first volumes to get a better view of the setting and characters. What Scott essentially claimed though, is that all manga series should be fully enjoyable by anyone newcomers from any point. This is clearly unfounded and assumes all manga is required to hold the reader’s hand through it and not achieve a very high amount of complexity at all. I certainly don’t get the impression that Yokaiden is a particular deep series, and Scott mentions that his problems are over a disconnect with the characters and story. Why should a story be responsible for the reader’s enjoyment if the reader isn’t even reading by the author’s intentions? It shouldn’t. [Without much basis, I would hazard a guess that, at least to an extent, Scott’s feelings on the series would apply had he read the first volume as well.]
If someone wants to get into a series without starting at the beginning, then they can go ahead. The effect will not be same as if the reader had started from the beginning, and that person has no call to pass a conclusion upon the series.
“That is why I am neither going to recommend for or against this title. I believe that I would have enjoyed this volume much better if I had been brought up to speed gradually instead of with a condensed recap. Nina Matsumoto didn’t win that Eisner award for no reason – she has got to have some serious talent.”
I respect that Scott VonSchilling chose not to “recommend for or against” the title, but I certainly still feel that it wasn’t accurate to describe Scott’s problem with it as any kind of “mistake”. I would rather a series not have to continually remind me of the “journey thus far”.
Hey, Scott- it’s like they say, the best part of a fight is making up later ^__^
Headline
Reader Comments (11)
I have to agree with you here. Most anime and manga are very non-episodic, and starting a series at any point other than the beginning will undoubtedly cause confusion for the reader which in turn will likely affect their enjoyment of said series. If I were in this situation, I would have went out and bought volume 1, read that first, and then review volume 2.
Although you made many valid points, you missed the fact that Scott is a blogger and therefore his reviews are going to be very subjective as opposed to a review by a professional critic. He wrote what he felt which is that he did not enjoy reading volume 2 by itself. He also makes an important point that even though a series should be read through as a whole, if you can't enjoy a volume all by itself without knowing what happened in volume 1, the mangaka didn't do a very good job decoupling the volumes. Sure you can have a large overarching plot across many books, but then you can also have smaller plots and fun character quirks that make every book stand out by itself and nothing is stopping a writier from doing both.
Thanks for posting this! You've addressed many of my thoughts after reading VonSchilling's review. His assertion that this idea of his was a "fundamental of manga comics" made me think he was a total amateur reviewer. He was also dismissive of points brought up by others (as in the fact that Yokaiden is not a serialized piece) and still applied those standards to the work. Unfortunately, his piece came off as a complaint about not being provided volume 1 by the publisher, with no real critique of the work itself.
@TheDigitalBug: The story in volume 2 was a self-contained adventure arc within the bigger plot. To put it in perspective, all the reader has to know of the bigger plot is "This kid likes yokai, one of them killed Grandma, and he goes to the yokai realm to find the one who did it." It's not complicated, and this information is given on the back of the book, in the character profiles, and in the actual comic via flashback "story thus far" recap. I really can't see how this hindered his experience, even if I would also argue he should start at the beginning.
At Ani-Gamers, our writers pay out of their own pockets for almost every title that they review. If Scott wanted to provide a useful review of Yokaiden to his readers, he should have bought a copy of the first volume rather than complain about the "dilemma" of only receiving volume 2 of the series. (Yes, it actually is possible to review something that you didn't receive for free!)
As it stands, his review isn't even useful as a purchasing guide, since he admits that not having volume 1 restricts him from making a recommendation regarding the second book.
For the record, TheDigitalBug, Scott has said on Twitter: "I think I model myself after print magazines." If he doesn't consider himself a blogger, I don't think he should be given a pass as if he was one.
@TheDigitalBug
What exactly is a non-subjective review? A review is one's opinion on something. It is completely impossible to be objective about a piece of entertainment. Entertainment is all about personal taste, and you can't objectively say that "the art style is not all that interesting". That's your opinion, your subjective opinion. I do not know how a professional critic can claim to be objective. Reviews are just opinions that people take the time to justify. An non-subjective review would have to be no more than the wikipedia article on the game, as any more would be inserting ones own opinion.
Anyway rant aside, I agree with you completely Evan. It's incredibly silly of Scott to demand what he does. I'm glad he disclosed the fact that he only read the one given to him, but I find it sad that he obviously didn't care to give his readers a useful review since I do not believe anyone would go out of their way to buy vol.2 before vol.1.
Well-put.
No surprise, I'm in the majority that thought Scott should have stepped up and requested vol. 1 from the publisher or bought it himself (it's only $10.95, dude!) if he still wanted to post a review. I thought he did make a good point to me on Twitter when he elaborated on the "highly condensed synopsis" at the front of the volume, which is apparently a dozen panels on a single page. Recaps of supposedly complex narratives should be better than that.
I'm in the same boat as those at Ani-Gamers in that I have to buy anything I might want to "review". It's rare that I get something sent to me (so far, 1 Cartoon Network show, some fantasy novels I haven't read yet, 1 video game, and 1 movie) but that's partly because I'm not really the type to reach to publishers and ask for each individual thing. Another component is that if I did start to receive a bunch of review copies, it'd seem a bit wrong to me *because* I didn't buy them, particularly on DVDs. (Of course, I could give away the review copies and buy the really good ones on my own dime if I wanted to truly own it.) Finally, I feel like I need to get through the stuff I already own that I haven't watched before I'm comfortable in requesting new things.
@thedigitalbug
First- as VamptVo stated, Scott sees his writing as professional level, and therefore will be treated as such.
Second- suppose someone wrote "the greatest manga ever" and everyone loved it. What if, though, it didn't work well to be read out of the full sequence. Is it then any less validated of greatness?
I sort of ranted this on Twitter, but I'll reiterate it again in paragraph from here.
Yes, I believe that every manga series can be picked up at any point and still be enjoyed by a newbie. Even a fairly complicated series like Pluto still adheres to those rules I explain in my review (subtlety reintroduces characters, reestablishes relationships to protagonist, flashbacks to key events). That's about all I'm going to repeat in this response, I fully explained my reasoning in my review.
Now the question is "Why didn't Scott just buy the first volume if he wanted to review it?"
I didn't want to review it, I got a copy from Del Rey who asked me to review it.
Yes, it actually came with a letter asking me to review volume two on my website, signed by Del Rey's PR Rep. It didn't say, "Please review this title only if you're going to say good things about it." It didn't say, "Please review this title only if you have volume one prior to reading this." It says only to review this book that they included, and so I am professionally obligated to review it on my blog.
It's bad enough that I opted to not review the bishonen/yaoi-fodder of Night Head Genesis. It would be VERY unprofessional to flake out on a 2nd review IN A ROW. So I could not skip this obligation no matter how much I wanted to.
So why do I need to invest another $11 into a product that I'm not even sure I'm going to like for a website I'm not making any money on?
And if I had to guess, I probably wouldn't have liked Yokaiden vol. 1 either because of the one actual part I could point out as being bad - the culture clash of hardcore Japanese folklore with a Western narrative.
So I would willing pay out-of-pocket to buy a book that I thought I was not going to like for a website I'm not making money off of? I'd much rather buy Yotsuba vol 7 with that money.
Del Rey asked me to review Yokaiden volume 2.
So I reviewed Yokaiden volume 2, and gave it my fair and honest opinions. I didn't hide anything from my readers. But I am not going to go out of my way because of a silly excuse that I believe is fundamentally unacceptable in the medium of manga.
@Scott: I think you'd made clear your point about not liking Yokaiden - the tone, the characters, the humor - while offering (perhaps?) enough information for your readers to potentially make a decision on their own. You even said you "eagerly look forward to seeing" whatever Nina Matsumoto does next so it wasn't ALL negative.
What I didn't particularly care for from you were an attitude that came off as haughty and the last portion of the review being devoted to lecturing about how manga (OEL or otherwise) should be written or published to accommodate new readers.
Each critic has their own standards of how to go about their business - http://ofcsnews.blogspot.com/2009/12/rules-for-critics.html" rel="nofollow">this survey of online film critics has varied answers to what each's primary rule is, including the succinct "Write well." Your method of composing reviews doesn't completely mirror how I would go about doing it and that's fine with me. Difference of opinion about creative works is constructive and invites conversation in search of a common understanding.
For example, I may not have a problem jumping into a series at the 2nd volume. Who knows? I likely would've gone out and bought the 1st volume ONLY if I were still interested after reading the 2nd, despite what I said in a previous comment about some sort of inner obligation as a reviewer. If the PR rep told me to ONLY review what they sent me, then I'd try to do that - but I personally would also try to exert some effort to obtain any helpful background information instead of just throwing up my hands and saying, "I just don't know! I give up!" I don't like giving up on intellectual issues but then again, that is me and not everyone else operates that way.
Now that I, as a reader, know on a basic level how you, as a critic, think about review material, I should be able to make an informed purchasing decision after consulting other reviews of the same product. I hadn't really heard about Yokaiden before you've wrote about it but now I'm considering trying it out (and starting from volume 1).
Hopefully, we can all move past this and your PR contacts will know you prefer not to receive a non-first volume of something so as to avoid contentious situations like this in the future.
@Scott: Hmm, still devoting most of your comments on the subject to "I didn't get volume 1." We got that.
What I would like to know is how the overall story of Yokaiden confused you when it is very simplistic. Even each of the "setting" questions you list in your review were answered in volume 2.
I come away from your review thinking that you are the rookie. What reader wants to read a review that is almost entirely about your decision to read a volume out of order, and how that presented so many problems for you that you can't recommend for or against the work? It makes you sound bad, and offers nothing of substance to your readers. Not only are readers likely to never read #2 before #1, but you just made them sit through something that makes you sound like you're punishing the artist/publisher for not sending you more/the correct freebie.
You would have done better to put a short note about not having read volume 1, and then expand on the three paragraphs of actual critiques made of the work. Oh, and a little more proofreading ("or what it an umbrella?"). Good luck on improving your review technique.
All the points are valid, somehow, here:
Scott, on one hand, was kindly asked to review a Volume 2 of a series, without having read The Volume 1. I think he's wrong in his assertion that all manga should be immediately accessible, as I've read amazing titles that are anything but. However, in the end, he's perfectly entitled to his opinion and his idea that this is one of the "fundamentals of manga writing".
Evan's point are also pretty valid. What is his point, you ask? He put it quite clearly: "However to decide that it is a fundamental of manga is a ridiculous blanket statement." I think he's 100% right. Generalizations do not make rules. Trends do not make rules. Scott's rules are not everyone's rules. They're his opinions, his observations, which might not be 100% accurate.
To tell the truth, the source of all this is Scott's use of language. That's the way he writes, and it will always be controversial because of that. It doesn't matter if he writes about medicinal flowers and their beneficial properties, because of his writing style, someone will take up in arms because of the way he phrases and idea or two.
And you know what the funny thing is?
I think it's alright.
Controversy makes you think. It makes you go out and try to understand the whys and the hows. It moves people, even if they don't like it, and even if it makes the person disliked by many.
So, keep them coming, Scott. And everyone else, too! If you see something that sparks your interest, talk about it! Write about it! Communicate! Exchange! These are the things that keep the community fresh and interesting, regardless of what certain people may think.