100,576pages on
this wiki

Back to page

What the heck is "manhwa"? An alternate spelling of "manga"?

This category should be renamed to "Manga", since that is the most recognizable word.

Or better yet, it should be merged with the Comic Books category, because there's not really any reason to keep this type of comic separated. It seems ridiculous to separate certain comics just because they're drawn a particular way.--Baluki 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Manhwa, where it starts with "Manga" redirects to here for now... User:Coobra/Sig3 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Manhwa isn't it the term used for Korean "comics"? While the manga is technically "manhwa" by the fact that the artist is Korean; The series is definitely listed as "manga" in the official publication in the comics themselves. We should be listing things under the official publication term, not technicalities. So first thing I say the new category is somewhat misleading. Secondly one definition of manga is is "comic", or "cartoon" from a english translation pov. So yes technically both could fall under the same category of Comic Books as you mentioned. ...or we could create a Comics & Manga category for both.Baggins 02:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say create the a category for both, since we have a template for both as well. {{Graphic novel}}. Hmm, just noticed the graphic says Manga, when the description bar reads Manhwa.. User:Coobra/Sig3 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, they should both be in the same category. If there are separate categories they should at least exist as subcats under the main category for both. BTW, its not our job to "correct" Tokyopop, or Blizzard for interpreted incorrect use of termninology. Both companies both list them as "mangas" officially[1]. So manga should be the main article. Manwha should be a foot note within the manga article.Baggins 02:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Category:Graphic novels already exists, how about we just move everything in Manhwa's category there. Same with Comic book's category. Looks like most of it has been double catted anyway. User:Coobra/Sig3 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Baggins 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly none of you understand the difference between a book and a comic and why they need to be split. Reverting it all, but leaving the manhwa->manga alone. --   11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to be pedantic a comic book is a subcategory of the term "book" (I'll pass on throwing piles of encyclopedia and dictionary definitions at this time, however). A comic book even falls under the subcategory of books known as the 'illustrated book'. The only time "comic" may not be a book if its printed in a newspaper, or is printed inside a book that content is not all "comic", i.e. 'comic strips'. I'll even avoid throwing out all the dictionary and encyclopedic definitions of 'graphic novel' in order to avoid sounding anal. Additionally as for the term 'comic', manga, manwha, etc are all terms for subtypes of comics. They mean comic in translation into english (although the literal translations are a bit more poetic in nature). They clearly fall under what defines the use of the term "comics"(hint: it doesn't have to have anything to do with the term 'funny'). Again I'm up for subcategories within a main category for simpliflication. However, there is a thing as too many main categories, I.E, 'overcatergorization.Baggins (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Baggins, a comic is typically released in small part issue formats, at which point it's never a book. When a comic is released in a volume it's a book and graphic novel. This definition isn't anything special, but was needed to seperate the two so the cats weren't unecessarily doubled up with both volumes and issues. You weren't around when i made that distincition and split them up accordingly in the categories, so i'm not surprised you didn't know. The split allows issues to sensibly exist under a parent volume's category for quick navigation. There is no issue of overcatergorization, as that suggests tht you have to dig down too deep to find something. You will clearly see that the articles and particular specific series cats are on several low levels, not the lowest, and thus the further splits of graphic novel, comic book, and manga are merely there for people who want further specification on the list of articles/cats without having to check each article in the book category to find out if it's of the type they want.
I stumbled upon this change while i was navigating the cats, and clearly discovered the mess it had become with the removal cats and recating of several articles. I could no longer find the ones i was looking for from the cat tree. If you want to rename the comic category to issues instead of comic for better clarification, go for it. But the specific book sub cats need to stay. --   11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, again while this is bordering being pedantic, but your references to "issues" is literally a reference to multiple "comic books". A book being a "set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together..."-webster, "within covers" House Unabridged, including "...magazines"-webster/ Comic issues are bound in this case with staples, and certainly are bound within covers (before you quibble as previously mentioned magazines have always fallen under the definition of the definition of "book" as well, although most people never notice that).

A comic book (notice that reference to books) is a "magazine containing sequences of comic strips"-webster (I've already pointed out the that magazines are a type of book by the definition of book). Comic book is an old term (1941) which first appeared in reference to newly created "issue" format (circa 1930s) for comics. Comic strips on the other hand the form of comic found inside newspapers and magazines are not books by themselves, they have been around a bit longer (about as long as newsprint has been around if not longer).

However, this is more of a linguistic history lesson and trivia then actually having much to do with the issue we are discussing here. Anycase my point is the definiton of book is simple and has been around for a long time. However, there are many subcategories of books including magazines, and comic books. Please don't accuse me of being clueless. Btw, this kind of thing is easily researchable.Baggins (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You took it all wrong if you thing i was calling you "clueless". All i was saying is you weren't active while i was doing the cats and showed a lack of understanding of why things were done the way they were, which i presumed was because of that. As you said yourself, everything you just said was essentially irrelevent to what we were talking about, and i wasn't trying to suggest you didn't know what a book or comic was in that way. This was just about practical definitions for use on the wiki. --   22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anycase best I can tell everything works out now as far as categorization. My main issue was with the use of manhwa over manga. As you recall I prefer to strictly avoid defining topics by our own descriptions or definitions if an official designation exists. I think that issue has been cleared up, and as long is there isn't an over abundance of categories everything goes well. I've checked and see what you had listed under manga/graphic novel/book categories and the way they are subcategorized, and cross-categorized. I agree I don't see much of an issue. Seems straightforward, and not overdone. I think the main issue & reason I entered the thread was just the use of manhwa anyways, which was the main point of this discussion in the first place. There was also some issue with the template uses. I personally have a more reductionist approach to their use. That is not have too many different ones, and put things that are closest in form together. Graphics (comics, manga, etc) vs. prose (short story and novels)for example.

However and I digress, I personally wish they were a bit more transparent, or done away with altogether as they are borderline bias POV (they used to be even more biased until I reworded them a bit). Basically they are huge blinking signs telling people to be critical of a source based on its type of media. Who do we think we are to presume to warn people about what they are reading? That's almost like saying from the get go that one source may or may not be valid than another (something we probably should avoid doing as it is a form of speculation). People can and need to be able to form their own opinions. Besides we have enough citation methods that source of details should be abundantly clear. You would never stick such blatent "warning signs" into an academic paper not even in a critical paper (and wikis are not a place for academic critique either). But really I'm going off on a tanget again, this isn't really the place for this, sorry :p... But if you want to discuss this further feel free to message me, or discuss it in one of the public threads (village pump).

But back to my original point before the digression, hopefully the use of the template has been cleared up. If it is autocategorizing, that needs to be fixed. It shouldn't categorize things into both comics (comic books, whatever), graphic novels, and manga. That can be done manually in order to make sure it isn't categorizing topics into the wrong categories.Baggins (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Manga: A linguistic perspecitveEdit

I've looked the American English language and what has been accepted into the so-called "standard English" as defined by published dictionaries for the terms manga and manwha. To begin with I warn about the concept of standards is kind of a misnomer as various dictionaries, cultures & subcultures do not always agree on what is considered "standard" and there is always room for slang, argot, jargon within cultural dialects, pidgins, and creoles, which may vary from region to region or within sub-cultures. These terms are not considered part of the so called "mainstream", i.e 'standard'.

In a linguistic study, the linguist looks more at the development of languages (including meanings, syntax, or grammar, etc from culture to culture). He does not put judgments on the way the language developed. In the linguists point of view these would all be considered valid language variations (dialects and pidjins) or in some cases new unique languages if they are sufficiently developed (including creoles), or as mentioned before, the ‘nonstandard’; "slang", "argot", or "jargon" used within a language by subcultures within the so-called "mainstream".

With those caveats set into place, I move onto the discussing the phonetic spelling "manga", based off the pronunciation of the original Japanese characters. I will limit the etymology to its first appearance (in Japanese language) up to present use in ‘American standard’ and further evolution of definitions by subcultures. It originally came into use in Japan sometime around WWII, it literally meaning something close to "aimless pictures, or whimsical pictures". It was a transliteration of the English term ‘comic’ which had become popular during WWII. Around circa 1951 the phonetic “manga” was adopted into the English language to define specifically Japanese comics. Sometime later it was added into many if not all of the English dictionaries, to mean Japanese-language comics.

In more recent years Korean-language comics were brought to English speaking countries. There was not a word in the English language to specify said variations of comics, and English language had not adopted the Korean transliteration for comics (phonetic “manwa”) into the “standard English”. Companies began to use the phonetic “manwha”, “Original Korean-language manga”, “Korean-language comics”, or simply “manga” (evolving the definition to represent any comic coming out of Asia). Dictionaries have not yet updated to represent this current “jargon” use of the word “manga”. So far a subculture in society has fully adopted the use of the phonetic manwha; however it does yet represent a term adopted into the “mainstream”. It has not yet been added into most published dictionaries (I was not personally able to find one dictionary that had added it in as part of the American English language).

Finally I close by pointing out that from a linguistic standpoint it doesn’t make much sense for one sub-culture to tell another culture that a use of an adopted word is “incorrect”. When for one, when a word is adopted into another language it rarely brings in the exact same syntax or use that it originally had in the setting of its original language (languages do not all share the same definitions, syntax, or grammar, etc). Words usually develop new or altered definitions when adopted into a new language. Not all words are fully adopted into the “language” or into every “sub-culture” using the language. It may only be used by a very small portion of society, as a slang, argot or jargon. Manga and manwha act as fine examples of this fact. One has been adopted into the mainstream even to the point of making into English dictionaries (although it has not been updated to show modern uses of the term in society), while the other has not yet been acknowledged by the “mainstream”, i.e is not yet part of the "standard" English.

This editorial has been brought to you by Baggins (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize if some of the history is off, it was the best I could do based on information I looked through. Secondly, I'd also like to point out that wikipedia avoids using terms such as incorrect/correct/true/untrue for defining use of these terms. Because definitions are defined by cultures, and may vary geographically. It is certainly not NPOV to use such terms for what is a difference in linguistic use.Baggins (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I did this research too myself at the time. American (which we are not limited to) adoption of a word is completely irrelevent to it's usage here. It's a romanized word from another language, same as manga. It does not need to exist in a dictionary to be used.
As is stated in the article, the fact the word isn't well known and not adopted is their reasoning for not marketing it as such, which is fair enough, but that doesn't make it any more correct, just a sensible choice. Incorrect doesn't explicitly mean it's a bad choice. --   10:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
First off this linguistic explanation comes from research and knowledge from education I've received on the subject in University on my way to my Anthropology major. I've tried to make it as clear as possible for the lay person. But perhaps I've still been unclear. I'll attempt one more time...
Actually,currently the word is limited to a very small subculture that being a nerd and geek subculture. Its a jargon, or even part of geek argot, to use a slang, "nerdspeak". It has not yet become part of the so-called mainstream language, the 'standard' language. What people forget is that languages can develop new definitons for old words, this is considered a valid evolution of language within linguistic study. There is no such thing as incorrect or correct usage once a definition becomes standardized and accepted by the mainstream (which I've warned is kind of a misnomer because a language can vary regionally, even from state to state). Not saying that some of the regional and subcultural slang, argots, or jargons are any less valid, but they may be seen as irrelevent by the mainstream language who has their own system. It is considered pretentious however for one subculture or culture to declare another culture incorrect, based on their own systems. "Tree" can mean three in hawaiian creole, and that is correct usage for that language. A hot dog is not a heated canine, no it is a frankfurther, in early 19th century it was used as an exclamation of approval, or in more modern times it means someone showing off (it evolved meanings have little to do with the original definition). A burrito means "little donkey" in spanish, the english definition of the word has nothing to do with original spanish term. One looking into the adoption of words into english language will find a huge number of words with multiple meanings that have little to do with the original definitions.
Again, I point out that even wikipedia avoids using the term "incorrect" because it breaks NPOV. You will not be warned again about this.Baggins (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Baggins, did you bump your head while away? Where did i at any point question your research? Seriously you don't need to go on likes this. I quite clearly stated that none of the above has any impact on this. They do it wrong, but they do it wrong with good reason. Incorrect is neutral as it's based purely on fact and not opinion at all. I won't be warned, cos i really don't care enough about this to revert you yet again when you're not even making valid points to the contrary and only restating things i already know and aren't a point of contention here. As always, what wikipedia do has no weight on here either. --   21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on, ad hominenm attacks ("did you bump your head"...) are not becoming of you. No my point as you keep clearly overlooking is that you can't call someone's use for a term incorrect when basing it on standards of other lanuages. You have supplied one standard, while overlooking the possibility that there are others. The English language is not Korean. The English language evolves its own meanings for terms.
Just because some may not like the way that some speakers of english have chosen to adapt & evolve the word "manga" and not "borrow" (using a linguistic term here) the word "manhwa" from the Korean language. Doesn't mean that they are "incorrect" or "wrong". What you have stated is an opinion... Like they say, "opinions are like asses, everyone's has one & they think everyone elses stinks". We do have a neutrality clause here, and from knowledge I know when a line is crossed. We will not allow any terms that may alienate one party over another, especially when said terms have not yet entered the "mainstream" as yet and been decided upon by the majority.
BTW, my point about dictionaries was not so much that they are the language, but that they tend to be a mirror of what has been adopted into the mainstream. In some cases yes they are outdated. But they give a good linguistic indication of what a huge number of people are speaking.Baggins (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet dictionary inclusion is the basis of your reasoning. But it's not a rule to go by or a place to draw the line, i'ts completely irrelevent. What's right is not always what's best. There is never any opinion there unless people misuse the word, which they will. It's a purely factual statement. Manga can not evolve, it has a set definition already that comes from another language. I'm surprised you taking that side, when usually you stick to definitions rather than try and say definitions can be ignored because they're always evolving. These words are from other languages, thus their definition is drawn directly from them and that is how they are to be used, simple as. --   12:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the dictionary is not the basis of my reasoning. I was just pointing out that not even it has updated to some of the current uses of manga (jargon, argo, etc.) that some subcultures of English use (i.e. using manga to refer to more than just japanese comics) vs. the current state of use of Manwha by other subcultures within English speaking groups. It merely was used as an example to show certain contexts. I'm not going to allow any strong wording that would pit the two groups against each other.

Yes, any language can evolve, alot of words evolved . Nothing necessarily has a fixed meaning. Even if it was borrowed from another language doesn't mean it will have the exact same definition in anogher. Some adopted words have different meanings altogether. Let's look at oh lets say burrito. It certainly doesn't mean "little burro" in english, our definiton has nothing to do with mules. ...Or how about Tycoon? IT doesn't mean a wealthy businessperson or magnate in the orignal japanese definition, it evolved beyond the original definiton of "shogun". You could find hundreds of words adopted and borrowed from other languages that do not maintain the same meaning in the new language. In the new language the old meaning is irrelevent. Again it was never the job of this site to tell people our definitions of language terms, but rather to inform about Blizzard's interpretions. The fact is english language has evolved quite a bit. We also never used the set definition of manga as it original in Japanese, if we did it would specifically mean "involuntary or aimless picture" a definition that does not exist in any english definition (instead they translate to comic or graphic novel). That already shows a deviation from the original definition. Many words in the English language are borrowed from other lanuages, and the borrowing of words is not as simple as you think it is. Also its not like the Japanese stick to strict english definitions of words, syntax, or even grammer when they choose to borrow from our language (, and not its hardly a Japanese only phenomena. Many lanugages do this when borrowing from other languages.

Also since when do I stick to definitions, I acknowledge that words may have more than one definition, many times, infact I acknowledge that some may have several definitions ("run" has something like fifty). You also forget that I'm an anthropologist (although in training). we are taught to understand that lanuages are not static, and can evolve. The english language has evolved several times (go ahead even try to understand Old English). I think I've also explained to you in the past that I didn't like the Blizzard's generic use of the term "race" or "species" and that it doesn't follow the scientific definition. However I have only complained in chat rooms/talk pages, I have avoided attacking the alternate use in WoWWiki articles. For it is definitely another definition of the terms in the English language (not the scienctic use, so not accurate to science, but still considered a common definition). When it came down to articles using them I stick to Blizzard's use of the terms. For the articles about them, I explained Blizzard's use of the term. I didn't do this to defend Blizzard's use, but just to show how they used it. I showed the scientific use in speculation section, but didn't attack Blizzard's version of the terms. I pointed out the difference on how they would be used had they been used in an actual scientifc source, which naturally has its own special definitions. But I didn't call Blizzard's use incorrect (it is an acknowledged definition of the words in certain contexts).

Like I said my issue isn't over how a term is used but rather sticking to explaining how Blizzard defines or uses a term. My own definitions should naturally stay out of it, as that would be a form of opinion/speculcation on my part. Wowwiki is not a place to tell people how they should be using terms, only showing people how Blizzard uses terms.Baggins (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd drop in and offer my two cents, as a long time fan of manga and someone relatively well-versed in the Japanese language. Manga (漫画) was first adopted for its modern use in Japan in the early 1800s, though it was used as far back as the late 1700s to refer to a popular style of caricatures. In Japanese, it's frequently used interchangeably with the word comic (コミック, komikku) to refer to Japanese comics, and present day manga style (panels, word bubbles, sound effects, etc.) are derived in part from Western comic strip style. However, in Japan, foreign comics and graphic novels are seperated from Japanese manga and comics, typically referred to as American comics (アメリカン・コミックス, Amerikan komikkusu), bande dessinée (バンド・デシネ, bando deshine, usually shortened to B.D.), etc., in the same way that Westerners typically draw a distinction between "comics" and "manga", regardless of the two words technically being synonymous. Same with anime (アニメ), animation, and cartoons. Although they all mean the same thing, and anime is, in fact, simply a shortened form of the word animation (アニメーション, animēshun), the words have different connotations depending on where they're used.
This debate has been around for a long time, with some arguing that because the words have the same definition, they can be used interchangeably, IE, calling Superman a manga is fine, and calling AKIRA a cartoon is also fine. The fact is, however, that both in Japan and Western countries, distinctions are typically drawn between "comics" and "manga", or "anime" and "cartoons".
Now, the same can basically be said with Korean comics (manwha) and Chinese comics (manhua), though these two terms aren't well known in Western Countries, as manwha and manhua aren't generally marketed towards westerners as actively as manga. Manwha tend to be printed in black and white and utilize similar art styles to manga, while manhua are often full-color and drawn in a realistic style, similar to western comics.
That all said, manga is not generally used as a blanket term for all Asian comics, except when marketed by Tokyopop (something they recieve a fair amount of criticism for). Tokyopop markets nearly all of their publications as "manga", regardless of the country of origin, the nationality of the artists or writers, or the artistic style or values represented. It is, in all likelihood, a marketing scheme used to draw in fans of Japanese comics, and some could say it borders on false advertising. They have numerous publications by American writers and artists, drawn in typical western comic book style (minus the coloring process) which are published as "manga". To my knowledge, Tokyopop is the only company actively marketing manwha/comics. in this manner.
Frankly, I don't think it really matters what Tokyopop and Blizzard call it, just because they call it something doesn't mean they're right. It should at least be clarified that they are, to some degree, misrepresenting it as something it really isn't. WoWWiki-Suzaku (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really wrong, though? I mean, in Korea, manwha more or less means manga. To be completely honest, the way people outside of Korea interprete it is wrong; I'm fairly certain that if you had a Japanese manga in Korea, they'd call it something like "Japanese manwha", or something to that effect. Now I could be wrong, but I believe I have a valid point. --IconSmall WolvarBig, furry, and insane (Have a conversation with the homocidal furry!) (Come and stalk me! ...No, wait, please don't.) 23:58, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
I mean, really. Take something like, god forbid, Naruto, and compare it to one of the Warcraft "manwahs". Is there really any difference, besides the different writing/drawing styles of the authors? I certainly don't see any. The only real difference to people outside Korea, again, is that the people who made them are of different ethnicalities, and if you really want to draw lines in the sand over something like that, then you may as well be an uber nitpicker over every little detial of every little thing. --IconSmall WolvarBig, furry, and insane (Have a conversation with the homocidal furry!) (Come and stalk me! ...No, wait, please don't.) 00:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I guess there's also the left-to-right reading style of it too, now that I look at Wikipedia's page, but looking at Wikipedia's page again, it said that it could very well be considered "different brands making the same product". Even Wikipedia more or less implies that manga and manwha are more or less the same thing, save the very nit-picky different ethnicality thing. IconSmall WolvarBig, furry, and insane (Have a conversation with the homocidal furry!) (Come and stalk me! ...No, wait, please don't.)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki