台灣漫畫的文法系譜：以1980年代的本土漫畫雜誌為中心

近十年來，在台灣能持續看到討論什麼是台灣漫畫的特色，而往前追溯的話，這樣的討論在1990年前後就已經出現，這些討論的對象是伴隨漫畫審查制產生的台灣漫畫斷層後，1980年代興起的新一代本土漫畫。這些意見認為本土漫畫模仿日本漫畫，但是這些意見將日本漫畫視為不證自明的存在，而忽略了日本漫畫其實充滿了多樣性，因此無法清楚說明本土漫畫如何模仿日本漫畫。另外，這些意見從故事設定、畫風等切入批評，而沒有注意到故事設定、畫風等「內容」是以共通「形式」為基礎上多樣化的展現，也就是說如果沒有先釐清對於普遍化的漫畫「形式」的理解，而直接單就各個實踐的「內容」作討論，往往會使得論說變得模糊不清。這些意見不是基於對漫畫形式的理解提出批評，而是主觀性發言，而這種主觀性發言與國民黨政府帶來的反日社會脈絡有關。以牛哥為首的人批評日本漫畫的意見能成為「事實」，除了因為自身的高社會、文化資本所帶來的話語權，也因為這些意見符合檯面上的反日社會脈絡。在這樣的脈絡下，1980年代的新一代本土漫畫家提出不要一味模仿日本漫畫，而要發展自己的特色，但是如何在作品中展現自己的特色卻缺乏實際的分析說明。 1980年代的本土漫畫雜誌大致可以分成時報系與非時報系，時報系嘗試推廣歐美漫畫等日本漫畫以外的漫畫，而非時報系則與日本漫畫具親近性。從連載陣容來看，有一批本土漫畫家持續在時報系的雜誌上刊登作品，另一批則是游移在時報系與非時報系的雜誌之間，這與漫畫家的教育背景及出道方式有關。根據先行研究，從漫畫的形式，也就是漫畫文法切入，才能有效分析不同文化的敘事差異。經過分析，可以發現無論是被他人評價或聲稱自己的作品已經脫離日本漫畫的漫畫家，或是承認自己的作品學習自日本漫畫，但是表示會發展自己特色的漫畫家，他們的作品或多或少都運用了日本漫畫的漫畫文法與敘事方式。然而文化並非無中生有，即使不同文化之間相互影響也不等於不具備自己文化的獨創性。

關鍵字

台灣漫畫；漫畫文法；復興商工；時報系；翻印日本漫畫；反日

並列摘要

Since the last ten years, there have been some discussions of the features of Taiwanese comics in Taiwan. In fact, this topic has been discussed since 1990, and the object at that time was local comics which appeared in the 1980s. In the discussions, local comics were criticized for imitating Japanese comics, but Japanese comics are various, so the criticism could not explain clearly how local comics imitated Japanese comics. Besides, the criticism was based on settings, drawing styles and so on. However, settings and drawing styles are “contents,” and “contents” are various developments based on “forms,” so the discussions will not be exact if we only focus on “contents” without clarification about “forms” of comics. The criticism was not based on the knowledge of forms of comics but subjective, and this was related to the anti-Japanese social context brought by KMT. The criticism against Japanese comics made by comic artist Li Fei-Meng and other people became “facts” not only because they possessed the power of discourse caused by their high social capital and cultural capital but also because their opinions fitted the anti-Japanese social context. In this context, local comic artists in the 1980s said comic artists should create uniquely instead of imitating Japanese comics, but there were no analytical proof showing how they created uniquely. Local comic magazines in the 1980s could be divided into two groups, the group of China Times and the group of non-China Times. The group of China Times tried to promote European comics and American comics and so on rather than Japanese comics, and the group of non-China Times was close to Japanese comics. Regarding comic artists in the comic magazines, one group of comic artists kept appearing in the magazines of the group of China Times, and the other group of comic artists moved between the group of China Times and the group of non-China Times. This was related to their educational backgrounds and the way they debuted. Previous studies said that an efficient analysis of narratives of different cultures should be based on the grammar of comics. After analyzing, we found that the comic artists who declared their works were independent of Japanese comics, or whose works were thought to be independent of Japanese comics, and the comic artists who admitted that they learned from Japanese comics but promised to create uniquely, both used the grammar of comics and the narratives in Japanese comics. However, it does not mean that we lose the uniqueness of our cultures if one culture influences another culture because cultures do not come from nothing.