COLUMNS

What Was Alternative Manga? What Was Alternative Manga?

Tezuka Osamu Outwits the Phantom Blot: The Case of New Treasure Island cont’d

It is truly unfortunate for the history of manga that Sakai died in 1969, before the droves of baby boomer manga otaku could surround him and extract more of his story for their magazines and fan dōjinshi. Meanwhile Tezuka, who died in 1989, had twenty-years worth of additional opportunities to tell his side, and a “god-of-manga” reputation to see that his version was ensconced as the official one.

Sakai Shichima and Tezuka Osamu, New Treasure Island (1945-46). Note the difference in Tarzan’s face between the two panels.

Without getting into everything Tezuka said, most often cited is probably the afterword to the remake of New Treasure Island in 1984. “Sakai Shichima is credited with the original idea [gen’an] and the composition [kōsei], and me with the drawing [sakuga]. However, the original idea aside, I had already created a rough sketch of the composition, 250 pages long. Due to circumstances with the publisher, Sakai reluctantly cut sixty pages, changing the dialogue in addition, and some of the drawing.” That he redrew Tarzan’s face in a less “manga-esque” style was Tezuka’s most specific complaint.

Even the story idea (the manga’s most conventional feature) he wasn’t willing to cede. Earlier, in 1969, Tezuka claimed that the idea of collaboration had arisen after showing Sakai one of his own wartime practice works. Scholars assume this to be Old Man’s Treasure Island (Oyaji no takarajima, 1945-46), based on the fact of a shared “treasure island” theme and a few scenes that appear to have been recycled.

Left: Tezuka Osamu, Old Man’s Treasure Island (1945-46). Right: New Treasure Island (1946-47).

All fingers point to Tezuka. Did Sakai do anything but get in the way?

The credits on the cover of the manga themselves are of little help. Sakai is credited with the “story” (gensaku) and “composition” (kōsei); Tezuka with “drawing” (sakuga). Even if one were to take these credits at face value, it is impossible to say exactly where “composition” ended and “drawing” began. While “kōsei” can be interpreted to mean sketchy thumbnails, it could also mean detailed breakdowns. Similarly “sakuga” might be taken to mean the entirety of the drawing process, the fleshing out of someone else’s rough pencil outlines, or just inking.

There is a Sakai side of the story, even if it is a molehill to Tezuka’s mountain of words. In “A Study of New Treasure Island,” Nishigami Haruo claimed (again, on the basis of talking directly with the aging artist) that Sakai had “thought out the panel breakdowns for each scene (the plot), then passed the baton to Tezuka Osamu. To the finished product, Sakai added the cover and the frontispiece. Thus one can say that Sakai Shichima was the father of New Treasure Island.”

Similarly, in an interview with Nakano Haruyuki circa 1990, Osaka Tokio, editor of Manga Man and a close colleague of Sakai’s in the 40s, wondered, “Why didn’t Sakai just finish the book after drawing so much of it, that’s the real mystery. He drew the cover and the frontispiece, y’know. Probably he felt half like he wanted to help out a young artist. I wonder if he wasn’t thinking about setting up a studio of specialized artisans, working as his disciples. But Tezuka was a young and talented man with lots of ambition, so he had different ideas from the get-go.”

And that is where Sakai’s defense rests. Nothing like a dead witness to speedily end a trial. Nothing like power, publicity, and status to move judgment unilaterally in one’s favor. Thanks in large part to Nakano Haruyuki’s book, however, I think it is now recognized that Tezuka was less than generous in redistributing credit. It would require a close comparative analysis of both artists’ work from that period to get any further with attribution. Instead let me build on what I have already written and argue Sakai’s case circumstantially.

With Sakai’s death, it was not only his own hand that was silenced. There were Disney comics floating around Tezuka and Sakai’s workspaces in the days and months of New Treasure Island’s inception. Tezuka notes it in his diary, in passing. From the little testimony available, the Sakai camp seems to have been more about open this fact. To me, the way in which these American comics were processed in New Treasure Island suggests the directing vision of someone with a specific kind of professional background.

(Continued)


15 Responses to Tezuka Osamu Outwits the Phantom Blot: The Case of New Treasure Island cont’d

  1. Mike Rhode says:

    Another good one, Ryan. It appears the subcontinent is agreeing with you. I look forward to a book of these some day.

  2. ryanholmberg says:

    I meant to thank Kristy Valenti, Mike Rhode, and especially Rodrigo Baeza for facilitating the Disney-side research for this article. Thank you!

  3. Zeparu says:

    Brilliant article, again! What I love about your writing is that it’s not only highly illuminating about early manga history, but it’s also a fascinating read, like a good mystery story, and extremely well written. That’s really rare in academic writing. It’s always great to see people emphasize the “story” in “history”. Well, I’d buy your book on manga history if you ever put one together!

    One question: Was Sakai a noticable force in Japanese manga after he split up with Tezuka? You wrote he “was erased from manga history”, but was he publishing and gaining reception at all? If his later work built on what you believe he braught to “New Treasure Island”, that would of course highly support your argument.

  4. ryanholmberg says:

    Sakai remained active and fairly productive as a manga author until the early 50s. Once the akahon book market was usurped by monthly magazines and rental kashihon books, he worked mainly as a kamishibai artist, experiencing fair success. He had regular work as well from newspapers. Building on the performances he used to do for American GIs, he appeared occasionally on Osaka TV doing caricature portraits. Things went downhill in the 60s.

    His post-New Treasure Island work of the late 40s and early 50s is interesting. A few books are sea/pirate/island adventures, clearly trying to mine the popularity of New Treasure Island. Many times they are in that key frame style, but it’s hard to say on that basis that therefore the idea was his. But yes, as you say, Sakai’s immediate post-Tezuka work is a topic I need to research at some point.

    From a taste of his work from a slightly later period, see this Western manga by Sakai I posted in a previous article:
    http://www.tcj.com/the-aomushi-showa-manga-library/4/

  5. Excellent piece, Ryan! I do have two comments I’d like to hear your thoughts on.
    1) Is Tezuka difficult to dislodge from his manga no kami-sama status not just because of how critics have set up his work as the origin of both so-called story manga and the “cinematic style” but also because of how those artists who rebelled against him or developed away from him are dependent upon his status in order to establish their own antagonism/development? I’m thinking especially of Tatsumi’s rather fawning depiction of Tezuka in _Gekiga hyouryuu_, but also how Itou in _Tezuka izu deddo_ both rejects the traditional arguments for Tezuka’s deification but accidentally re-establishes it as a result of his whole theory of the kyara and its supposed history.
    2) Isn’t Tezuka’s reputation as dependent on his prolific output as his “invention” of story manga?

  6. BK Munn says:

    ironic how the Disney comic artists Barks and Gottfredson almost had a greater impact in Europe and Japan, especially if they can be credited with inspiring graphic-novel length storytelling in manga –some wonderful research and connecting of dots here

  7. patrick ford says:

    BK, The trouble is, in American comics people tend to see things through an economic prism. In other words for the majority of people American comic books are Marvel comic books, just because Marvel is the Wal-Mart of comics.
    Barks was a huge influence on Crumb, and many other cartoonists outside the Merry Marching Society. But in the U.S. people most often think in economic terms so the large number of so called “alternative” creators who constantly mention Barks are not important as compared to the 40,000 copies sold of the most recent BATMAN, or the much larger success of an AVENGERS movie. Barks is just small change in that world.

  8. ryanholmberg says:

    1) I generally agree with what you are saying. When it comes to the passage from Tezuka to Tatsumi, however, history has simplified things by leaving out many intermediary figures, notably the judo manga artist Fukui Eiichi, whose popularity rivaled Tezuka’s in the early 50s, and Matsumoto Masahiko, Tatsumi’s close colleague at Hinomaru bunko (the Osaka kashihon publisher), who was a bigger fan of Fukui’s rather than Tezuka’s work, and to whom Tatsumi’s visual innovations owe a great deal. If I were to write “An Origin of Gekiga” essay, that would be my line of attack, and my way of de-centering Tezuka, at least on the matter of “cinematics.”
    2) Certainly being prolific helped. But part of the reason he was prolific (other than an ability to draw and come up with ideas quickly) was that he was popular and everyone wanted to publish his work, and turn into TV serials and merch. Without that gigantic popularity and reach, volume alone would not have had the influence.

  9. Hy Resolution says:

    “Kalle Anka & C:o”, the contemporary Swedish equivalent of Walt Disney’s Comics and Stories, sells 80,000 copies.
    Per week.

    The publishers claim 550,000 readers for every weekly issue.

    It’s not all Barks, of course, but part of that house was certainly built by Carl.

  10. ryanholmberg says:

    Since people seem interested in how Barks and Gottfredson’s work itself moved around the world, here is my sketchy understanding of the formal distribution of Disney comics themselves in early postwar Japan.

    A number of the Dell Disney titles of the late 40s were translated into Japanese around 1950, overlapping with the deal between Daiei and Disney. Some of these were published like American-style comic books, basically Japanese editions of the Dell books, though I haven’t done a direct comparison to say if they are identical. I have also seen (and own) a number of other Mickey and Donald comics arranged as monochrome strips and published together with other American material (Felix, Tuffy) in horizontal booklets with titles like “Amerika manga” in the late 40s. Occupation authorities were apparently working with American newspaper syndicates to disseminate this material, before private deals like that between Daiei-Disney. In the 50s, there are also some interesting renditions of Disney comics, published in hardcover, sold retail but also lent through kashihon outlets. The art in most of these stinks, but the early ones from around 1953 are really beautiful. They are all from the publisher Tomo Book, which had a deal with Disney.

    Tezuka’s use of Disney at the time of New Treasure Island is piecemeal. But between 1948 and roughly 1953, when he is seriously trying to emulate Disney comics and movies, there is this entire formal Disney industry beginning to grow in Japan.

  11. Ryan, you’re the greatest. Formal close reading + historical analysis of attribution = comics scholarship gold.

  12. Mike Hunter says:

    Indeed so! On-target compliments, richly deserved…

  13. Pingback: Comic books as investments; the ‘Latino-ness’ of DC’s Vibe | Robot 6 @ Comic Book Resources – Covering Comic Book News and Entertainment

  14. ryanholmberg says:

    Thank you. Keeps me fueled. But what I really want is one of the American mob to take me to task for spotty comics and animation history. The Japan side I can handle. I publish these cross-national pieces here partially as a cry for help with the American side. If there is one community in this world that can provide a “peer review” worth the name on the matter of comics history, it should be TCJ.

  15. Hello Ryan,

    Your article is a fantastic read. With a friend, Erwin Dejasse, we worked on the influence of animation on the belgian autors: Franquin, Peyo and Morris (“Morris, Franquin, Peyo et le dessin animé” 2005). Like americans of the time, they mixed animated cartoon and comic books because they were influence by “Felix”, “Popeye” and “Mickey”. All characters that were popular in cinema and newspapers. They started their comic book career in 1946, under american “occupation”, and similarities with “The Treasure Island” of Sakai and Tesuka are great. At the same time Albert Uderzo was also working in that veine, so was André Rigal, Erik, Mouminoux, Bob de Moor, Ray Goossens etc. the same can be said in Holland with Toonder and in Argentina with Quinterno. Mass culture is a global phenomon since Topffer, it is silly to limit creations to frontiers that commerce/exchange has reduced to symbols long ago.

    As for the “cinematik” aspect, i think the great strenght of Disney was to import the live action cutting and feel with his cartoon characters. “Snow White” completly blurs the lines between live-action cinema and image per image animation. Hence the confusion to young (and old) spectators! Propaganda during the war have also mixed live-film (documentary) with animation (fiction and schematic explanations).

    By helping us better understand one’s role in the creation of Treasure Island, the special qualities of Tezuka Osamu are much more respected than the usual propaganda granting him all talents. In Europe we are lacking good facts and real informations about japanese pre-Tezuka créations.Thank you again for your article!

    If you send me a adress i will gladly send a copy of our book.
    Philippe Capart

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>