John Jakala, who may well be the best non-Deppey comicsblogger on the block, offers up a masterful five-part collection of negative reviews of various manga he’s been reading. Substantive and thought-provoking, they ought to settle the question of whether good comics criticism can be found on the Internet. But his review of Battle Royale #3 raised more questions than it answered, for me at least.
Part of John’s disappointment with the volume is the out-of-nowhere intrusion of some pretty heavy hentai scenes, which he worries could open up both Tokyopop and himself to child-pornography or obscenity charges. Now, I’m reasonably sure that a drawing of underage people engaged in sex acts does not constitute child pornography, at least not yet, or at least not as obscenity laws are enforced in most of the country. I know that a law was passed to the effect that “depictions” of such activities would be prosecutable, but as this would mean Barnes & Nobles nationwide could be shut down for selling Lolita, I’m not sure if these provisions have even been tested. And since I don’t even remember the name of the law, for all I know it’s already been struck down by the courts. (Tips as to what the hell I’m thinking of here would be appreciated.)
At any rate, the scenes in question are no more actual child pornography than, say, Phoebe Gloeckner’s A Child’s Life (which WAS seized by Canadian authorities, however). Tastefulness–that’s a different story, and one where we’re getting into some questionable territory, but I think the sex is presented in a light that makes it comparable to, and congruent with, the incredibly graphic violence. For the character in question, sex is as much of a weapon as anything else, so it does make sense from a storytelling point of view.
On another front, I myself didn’t really notice the dropoff in art quality between the volumes that John and others were bothered by. Actually, now that he mentions it I think I saw something different, but figured it was just because such a different kind of story was being told. Perhaps my inexperience with manga played a part here; it’s tough for me to differentiate between art styles, and I’m certainly nowhere near the level of discernment I’ve achieved with American comics. (Recently, someone on the blogosphere made the analogy that we have the same kind of trouble noting differences in manga that might seem obvious to someone who’s been reading it for years as a manga reader might have discerning between the humor found in a Keith Giffen Justice League versus Grant Morrison in one of his sillier moods. Again, tips as to what the hell I’m talking about would be appreciated.)
John and some of the people in his comment thread mention the other two versions of Battle Royale that exist, a prose novel and a film. I didn’t like the BR movie at all; I thought it aped all of the worst aspects of American action movies, which coupled with the subject matter made it extremely tacky, distasteful, and (perhaps worst) cliched and boring. I’m continuing to enjoy the manga because it’s been doing everything so much better. I’ve heard great things about the novel, and am looking forward to checking it out, particularly since I’m told it fills in a lot of plot holes (the true nature of the government, how this can be a TV show despite the fact that we don’t see a single camera, etc.).
I really do suggest you go and read John’s piece, even if you’re not interested in manga generally or the manga he’s talking about in particular; it’s a real object lesson in how this kind of writing can and should be done.