Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
That's some pure-grade bunk is what it is. You can easily skim a history of manga at Wikipedia and find out the story is BS.
I'm not a huge manga reader myself. But I don't think it's a good idea to judge an entire style of publishing (especially one that comes from a culture you don't understand) based on 'people are saying...' arguments.
It's as fallacious as arguing that paperbacks were created as a way to make porn novels cheaper and easier to hide.
|
With all due respect, Zod, while I'm as research-loving as the next guy, I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia. I know first-hand just how...shall we say, "curated" it is.
Some of the purported "bunk" is true. Early men's body-building magazines and other "girlie" rags that were originally "photography" magazines were exactly that--created to stimulate certain appetities and they weren't for bodybuilding or photography.
Sometimes, things simply are what they are, you know?
Hitch