What do you think?
Rate this book
Passionate Friendship: The Aesthetics of Girl’s Culture in Japan
Shōjo manga are romance comics for teenage girls. Characterized by a very dense visual style, featuring flowery backgrounds and big-eyed, androgynous boys and girls, it is an extremely popular and prominent genre in Japan. Why is this genre so appealing? Where did it come from? Why do so many of the stories feature androgynous characters and homosexual romance?
Passionate Friendship answers these questions by reviewing Japanese girls’ print culture from its origins in 1920s and 1930s girls’ literary magazines to the 1970s “revolution” shōjo manga, when young women artists took over the genre. It looks at the narrative and aesthetic features of girls’ literature and illustration across the twentieth century, both pre- and postwar, and discusses how these texts addressed and formed a reading community of girls, even as they were informed by competing political and social ideologies.
The author traces the development of girls’ culture in pre–World War II magazines and links it to postwar teenage girls’ comics and popular culture. Within this culture, as private and cloistered as the schools most readers attended, a discourse of girlhood arose that avoided heterosexual romance in favor of “S relationships,” passionate friendships between girls. This preference for homogeneity is echoed in the postwar genre of boys’ love manga written for girls. Both prewar S relationships and postwar boys’ love stories gave girls a protected space to develop and explore their identities and sexuality apart from the pressures of a patriarchal society. Shōjo manga offered to a reading community of girls a place to share the difficulties of adolescence as well as an alternative to the image of girls purveyed by the media to boys and men.
Passionate Friendship answers these questions by reviewing Japanese girls’ print culture from its origins in 1920s and 1930s girls’ literary magazines to the 1970s “revolution” shōjo manga, when young women artists took over the genre. It looks at the narrative and aesthetic features of girls’ literature and illustration across the twentieth century, both pre- and postwar, and discusses how these texts addressed and formed a reading community of girls, even as they were informed by competing political and social ideologies.
The author traces the development of girls’ culture in pre–World War II magazines and links it to postwar teenage girls’ comics and popular culture. Within this culture, as private and cloistered as the schools most readers attended, a discourse of girlhood arose that avoided heterosexual romance in favor of “S relationships,” passionate friendships between girls. This preference for homogeneity is echoed in the postwar genre of boys’ love manga written for girls. Both prewar S relationships and postwar boys’ love stories gave girls a protected space to develop and explore their identities and sexuality apart from the pressures of a patriarchal society. Shōjo manga offered to a reading community of girls a place to share the difficulties of adolescence as well as an alternative to the image of girls purveyed by the media to boys and men.
181 pages, Paperback
First published May 7, 2012
10 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Read
January 5, 2026Lo audaz que me parece citar a Adrienne Rich y su continuum lésbico para decir que las “amistades pasionales” no se pueden leer bajo ningún concepto como lesbianas… Chica deja de meter tu ideología en un supuesto estudio serio, que solo sabes enfurruñarte porque haya académicos haciendo lecturas queer de cosas que, efectivamente, muestran evidencias de haberse codificado como queer teniendo en cuenta el contexto histórico y sociocultural. Vamos a dejarnos de esencialismos culturales y de infantilizar a Japón, que esta gente no descubrió el lesbianismo en 1980. Y lo de soltar que Yaneura no es representativa de la obra de Nobuko cuando sabes que a los dos años de publicarla tuvo que dar varios pasos atrás para protegerse para poder vivir su relación con menos escrutinio existiendo el discurso (claramente documentado en la sexología que maneja ya la idea de inversión como congénita) de Kuroshoubi, la única obra sobre la que tuvo total libertad editorial porque era su propia revista, ya es para mirárselo. Por no hablar de que intentando desmontar la idea de subversión y feminismo en la obra de Nobuko lo que consigue es restarle valor literario, asumiéndolo como cualquier otra creación de la shōjo bunka. Pero bueno, está bien leer este tipo de aportaciones para saber exactamente por donde justificar yo mi investigación para desmontarlas.
Muy bien documentado el tema de las revistas, eso sí.
Muy bien documentado el tema de las revistas, eso sí.
December 6, 2024
"Feminist critics longing for radical, subversive themes or subtext in shōjo manga may find themselves lamenting along with Yokomori Rika, among others, that shōjo manga promote bad ideology or present false, unachievable fantasies. However, it is possible for a more nuanced, but still feminist, approach to move beyond the dichotomies of good (subversive) versus bad (oppressive) ideology or harm versus empowerment to readers. Assuming that the readers, although young and female, are not simply dupes to their own oppression, the massive popularity of shōjo manga demands that we consider the positive pleasures of the genre."
July 17, 2025
ich logge das als placeholder für all die literatur die ich für die ba arbeit lese idc ich habe nicht jedes kapitel gelesen juckt
January 1, 2021
It takes a lot for me to consider a book to be one of the worst I've ever read.
Here's the deal: I didn't have to share Shamoon's thesis to be interested in it. Homosociality as a priority of a restricted, insular community within a more widely oppressive society? As a stand-in for ideals that can't be brought to a fruition in a patriarchal culture? Genuinely fascinating and interesting in its own right, even if I think the constant "no-homo" is tiresome. Bring it on.
But Shamoon doesn't actually concern herself with what is there. She's entirely caught up in proving what is not. To wit: any hint of queerness, gender negotiation, or feminism. She's not concerned with arguing for anything, she just wants to complain about better-researched and more comprehensive academics who have said things she disagrees with. Even sometimes, things she agrees with -- I don't know what convinced Shamoon that Robertson is arguing for some kind of overall lesbian and subversive reading of the Takarazuka Revue, but it wasn't the actual book Robertson wrote. Robertson's book is also a much more interesting deconstruction of gender roles in Japan, and how they support a nationalistic and patriarchal paradigm, than Shamoon could ever hope to articulate. (Which is kind of sad when you consider how Shamoon had over 10 years' worth of additional research and criticism to draw from since Takarazuka was published.)
Especially considering the dearth of Shamoon's original research. Her only contribution to her thesis is dry numbers about magazine readership or unsupported personal interpretations of what certain art choices in manga "mean." She neglects the ethnographic angle, conducts no interviews -- she actually inserts American reader reactions and protests there's "no reason" why Japanese readers would have a different perspective. (After an entire book of accusing Western critics of projecting "Western identities" onto stories about the love between girls.) All of the interesting insight is from different scholars, or provided by the research of others. The bibliography is the most impressive part of this book.
And let's just call a spade a spade: this book is so concerned with disproving queerness in any and every respect (with such overcompensating fervor it manages to argue its way back into everything being super gay, ironically), one can only call it homophobic. Again, not because I disagree with its thesis! But because it's not presenting an actual argument that stands separate on its own merits, just a tirade against perceived lesbian content. It doesn't tell you anything new, or argue for any neglected insight, as its best points belong to other scholars. Its only unique contribution to the field is to castigate a queer or feminist reading of hundreds of texts created over decades, and to so narrowly define those concepts as to eradicate their possibility.
It doesn't even do a good job of that, if you try and follow my rantings in the progress notes. The logic is circular and self-aggrandizing, contradictory research is often hidden in the endnotes, and Shamoon doesn't display a deeper investigation of language or cultural concepts beyond "this is what I want it to mean, because it supports my argument." It reads like an overwritten thesis paired with a bigoted tempter tantrum. Again, I have read and appreciated plenty of texts by academics I disagreed with and even disliked. But this is just... not well-done.
Here's the deal: I didn't have to share Shamoon's thesis to be interested in it. Homosociality as a priority of a restricted, insular community within a more widely oppressive society? As a stand-in for ideals that can't be brought to a fruition in a patriarchal culture? Genuinely fascinating and interesting in its own right, even if I think the constant "no-homo" is tiresome. Bring it on.
But Shamoon doesn't actually concern herself with what is there. She's entirely caught up in proving what is not. To wit: any hint of queerness, gender negotiation, or feminism. She's not concerned with arguing for anything, she just wants to complain about better-researched and more comprehensive academics who have said things she disagrees with. Even sometimes, things she agrees with -- I don't know what convinced Shamoon that Robertson is arguing for some kind of overall lesbian and subversive reading of the Takarazuka Revue, but it wasn't the actual book Robertson wrote. Robertson's book is also a much more interesting deconstruction of gender roles in Japan, and how they support a nationalistic and patriarchal paradigm, than Shamoon could ever hope to articulate. (Which is kind of sad when you consider how Shamoon had over 10 years' worth of additional research and criticism to draw from since Takarazuka was published.)
Especially considering the dearth of Shamoon's original research. Her only contribution to her thesis is dry numbers about magazine readership or unsupported personal interpretations of what certain art choices in manga "mean." She neglects the ethnographic angle, conducts no interviews -- she actually inserts American reader reactions and protests there's "no reason" why Japanese readers would have a different perspective. (After an entire book of accusing Western critics of projecting "Western identities" onto stories about the love between girls.) All of the interesting insight is from different scholars, or provided by the research of others. The bibliography is the most impressive part of this book.
And let's just call a spade a spade: this book is so concerned with disproving queerness in any and every respect (with such overcompensating fervor it manages to argue its way back into everything being super gay, ironically), one can only call it homophobic. Again, not because I disagree with its thesis! But because it's not presenting an actual argument that stands separate on its own merits, just a tirade against perceived lesbian content. It doesn't tell you anything new, or argue for any neglected insight, as its best points belong to other scholars. Its only unique contribution to the field is to castigate a queer or feminist reading of hundreds of texts created over decades, and to so narrowly define those concepts as to eradicate their possibility.
It doesn't even do a good job of that, if you try and follow my rantings in the progress notes. The logic is circular and self-aggrandizing, contradictory research is often hidden in the endnotes, and Shamoon doesn't display a deeper investigation of language or cultural concepts beyond "this is what I want it to mean, because it supports my argument." It reads like an overwritten thesis paired with a bigoted tempter tantrum. Again, I have read and appreciated plenty of texts by academics I disagreed with and even disliked. But this is just... not well-done.
August 18, 2025
very interesting the exact kind of book I want to read. Wasn’t quite 5 stars for me I felt like certain areas were lacking but I still feel like I gained a lot and widened my overall knowledge on the subject. I understand the criticism that her insistence on class-S relationships not being queer can come off as homophobic and I agree it came off a bit heavy handed at times but I also agree that we cannot impose western queer identities onto these works and that there’s nuance here. I really enjoyed in her afterword when she said “That is why figures such as Yoshiya Nobuko can be claimed by both sides, as a writer who led an unconventional personal life but whose work reveals a fairly conservative ethos” I think it really emphasizes the point she was trying to make.
December 26, 2024
I read this a while ago (it's December 2024 at the time of writing this), but I learned SO much from this book! I initially borrowed it from the library, but I now have a copy I got from Christmas. This book is jam-packed with everything regarding the origin of shoujo manga, the shoujo magazines and fan clubs pre-world-war-2, and then the rise of female mangakas in shoujo in the 1970s. It was enjoyable to read and didn't read too much like a textbook. I want to reread in the future when writing my research on this topic.
November 15, 2025
I have always seen this work quoted and cited all over the internet and wanted to read it myself. This book has a nice amount of history and is very digestible. I find some sections to have more limited content and sources, but I think that's ok. Shamoon is very carful with keeping to the cultural/historic realities a lot of western readers don't like to acknowledge in this genre and it's with great respect. I don't agree with all of her views and observations but enjoyed what she presented.
Mostly I would like to say I think this book and Shamoon are extremely mis-cited and mis-quoted out there. Chances are you have seen Shamoon cited and quoted in various articles and wikis. After reading this and more of her work I find a lot of it to be either misquotes or a complete misinterpretation of what she is actually saying. It seems a lot of these citations have come via tertiary source. People writing articles and video essays please pick up the physical book.
Mostly I would like to say I think this book and Shamoon are extremely mis-cited and mis-quoted out there. Chances are you have seen Shamoon cited and quoted in various articles and wikis. After reading this and more of her work I find a lot of it to be either misquotes or a complete misinterpretation of what she is actually saying. It seems a lot of these citations have come via tertiary source. People writing articles and video essays please pick up the physical book.
November 3, 2023
Much has been said about the book. As a reader coming to the shoujo genre from its later appropriation by the male otaku culture (including the yuri genre), I can see how fans and scholars have divergent feelings for this line of research. I do think Shamoon's emphasis on more careful approach (which can be very polemical sometimes) in comparative studies important. The gender and cultural studies approach entering academia after 1970s can surely be a applied to the works of Year 24 Group, which was motivated by the shared critical approach to gender and sexuality in the global 1970s. Yet to understand how the Group came to its critical moment also demands a different comparative framework for prewar Japan (and late-19th c/early-20th c Euro-America), and different idea of queerness might be revealed if more works are done in that direction. Hopefully the book can serve as a stepping stone.
February 11, 2026
Lettura interessante, mette in evidenza in maniera esaustiva la continuità tematica e artistica fra le riviste per ragazze pre belliche e il manga shōjo (nonostante le varie rivoluzioni del genere). Ho apprezzato che si sia trattato anche delle variazioni artistiche.
Però, nonostante in linea generale concordi con la sua visione sull'omosocialità, specialmente per le S-kankei (molto meno per le letture che ha dato dei manga degli anni '70 che ha analizzato, dove a tratti questo discorso sull'omosocialità risultava forzato), mi ha fatto storcere un po' il naso il voler continuamente precisare la mancanza di qualsiasi - eventuale e/o possibile - sottotono queer o femminista nelle opere/riviste/relazioni menzionate, anche andando più volte e con una certa insistenza a svalorare tesi e studi condotti da altrx studiosx.
Però, nonostante in linea generale concordi con la sua visione sull'omosocialità, specialmente per le S-kankei (molto meno per le letture che ha dato dei manga degli anni '70 che ha analizzato, dove a tratti questo discorso sull'omosocialità risultava forzato), mi ha fatto storcere un po' il naso il voler continuamente precisare la mancanza di qualsiasi - eventuale e/o possibile - sottotono queer o femminista nelle opere/riviste/relazioni menzionate, anche andando più volte e con una certa insistenza a svalorare tesi e studi condotti da altrx studiosx.
September 26, 2023
I read this book to begin my study of Japanese women's culture. It's easy to understand and I really appreciate the care the author has taken in researching the lives of so many pre-war Japanese teenage girls.
As some say, the chapter where the author talks about Nobuko Yoshiya's private life can be a bit tiring... but I understand her concern in dealing with this topic as well.
Personally, I don't think it lowers the quality of the book.
It's not a very useful book if you're looking for more information about the "Year 24" manga.
However, it's a very good book for those just starting out!
As some say, the chapter where the author talks about Nobuko Yoshiya's private life can be a bit tiring... but I understand her concern in dealing with this topic as well.
Personally, I don't think it lowers the quality of the book.
It's not a very useful book if you're looking for more information about the "Year 24" manga.
However, it's a very good book for those just starting out!
March 4, 2013
Although manga as we know it today began in the post-war years, there is a clear path from pre-war girls' culture--a culture that grew from the Meiji era, when girls began to go to school, to have special magazines published just for them, to develop a culture exclusively their own.
Shamoon presents a carefully constructed guide book through the creation and history of the shoujo, examining the shoujo's stories and art and clearly explaining theories behind topics such as the evolution of the boys' love sub-genre and the distinct markers of shoujo manga. Her selected artists, both pre- and post-war are perfect; her chosen art plates are beautiful and appropriate.
Shamoon presents a carefully constructed guide book through the creation and history of the shoujo, examining the shoujo's stories and art and clearly explaining theories behind topics such as the evolution of the boys' love sub-genre and the distinct markers of shoujo manga. Her selected artists, both pre- and post-war are perfect; her chosen art plates are beautiful and appropriate.
April 4, 2015
It is a good book on Japanese girls' print culture ranging from the early 1900s to 1970s. Shamoon's research concerning archival, primary materials is both impressive and valuable but her preoccupation with negating previously published research on similar subject matters is rather annoying and disappointing. This is particularly so because many of the ideas she presents in the book are not new or fresh, and her analyses of other authors' works are, quite sadly, inaccurate.
October 21, 2016
For the most part I enjoyed this book, especially because it's the first of its kind that I've read, so it served as a nice introduction to the history and scholarship behind Japanese girls' literature and comics. I'm not sure if I agree with her thoughts on Boys' Love manga, but overall this was an interesting read, and will hopefully lead backwards through a trail of good research - I'm looking forward to further reading.
March 28, 2015
This book gets 4.5 in spirit! I'm only disappointed in the last chapter, in which the author resorts to the old and tired thesis of the boys love genre as a safe space for teenage female readers. Otherwise, this has been an excellent read.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews