As some on Twitter may recall, December marked my official one-year anniversary as a manga reviewer. I’ve been blogging about manga since late 2007, but it was December of 2008 when Kate Dacey e-mailed me to ask if I’d be interested in joining the crew at Manga Recon. Having declared several times before then that “I don’t write reviews!” I was not especially confident, but I plowed in anyway and it’s been a fantastic year. My first review subject was volume thirteen of Claymore for the December 8th Manga Minis column. I’d like to think I’ve come a ways since then.
An old entry that springs to mind is one called Life of Me, posted on January 1st of last year, in which I included a photo of the desk where I write. I think you’ll notice the most significant change over the course of the year: …
From the very first pages of volume one, Urasawa demonstrates an uncommon ability to move back and forth in time, juxtaposing scenes from Kenji’s past with brief glimpses of the future. The success of these scenes is attributable, in part, to Urasawa’s superb draftsmanship, as he does a fine job of aging his characters from their long-limbed, baby-faced, ten-year-old selves into thirty-somethings weighed down by adult responsibilities.
Do you remember those first, glorious seasons of Heroes and Lost? Both shows promised to reinvigorate the sci-fi thriller with complex, flawed characters and plots that moved freely between past, present, and future. By the middle of their second seasons, however, it was clear that neither shows’ writers knew how to successfully resolve the conflicts and mysteries introduced in the first, as the writers resorted to cheap tricks — the out-of-left-field personality reversal, the all-too-convenient coincidence, and the arbitrary let’s-kill-off-a-character plot twist — to keep the myriad plot lines afloat, alienating thousands of viewers in the process. Heroes and Lost seemed proof that even the scariest doomsday scenario would fall flat if saddled with too many subplots and secondary characters.






In The Idea of History, author R. G. Collingwood argues that nineteenth-century historians viewed their task in a different spirit than their predecessors. While previous generations of scholars treated history as a simple chain of events, the Romantics wanted to recreate the past through their writings. The Romantic historian, Collingwood explained, “entered sympathetically into the actions which he described; unlike the scientist who studied nature, he did not stand over the facts as mere objects for cognition; on the contrary, he threw himself into them and felt them imaginatively as experiences of his own.”