The problem is that when french cartoonists "step" into it, they still only assimilate a part of the graphism and contextual elements. Manga is not just about the way character look; it includes a whole world of graphical codes and page structure. It's just like Canada Dry; it smells like it, it looks like it, but it ain't it. Aristotelician philosophy insists on one thing: "art is imitation". It still doesn't mean that just because you painted a duck, it's a duck. Those french cartoonists might have assimilated the "kira eyes" concept, and in some cases the japanese view of colirs, I shall remind you that you can tell a corean comic from a japanese instantly even without texts, and a french one even better. They all are excellent in skills but they are wrong if they think that they should or can make "manga". First thing, manga won't take itself seriously. There is a willing part of irresponsibility in the manga style. Occidental cartoonists have a very high opininon of themselves, especially when they step into this kind of league: they all claim they got it all, and built a kind of fake elitism on it. The first guy to do it was Trantkat, the rather not-talented cartoonist in the "Tsunami" magazine. I actually showered his ego in an open letter. Nowadays the only french artists who have manga influences and that I'd respect are the authors of "Sillage". They obviously borrowed some concepts from manga but they do not try to imitate it. Not only the occidental eye and scheme of thought are different from the japanese one, but to top^it, where is the point in imitating a specific exotic style ? I'd rather see inventive young authors working on their own style rather than watching a stampede of westerner Katsura-wannabe kobuns. Art id personal. Borrowing someone else's art won't take an artist very far.