モノスゴク萌エル。 A moe~ thread.

[blkmage]

The time is ripe to make a thread about the thing that has been influencing anime and related works for the last decade and a half. The question of what moe is and its effect on this medium is a question that has raged across the internets for years and there is a ton of reading for those who are so inclined. And so, we bring this discussion here.

Preface
But first, an anecdote. A long time ago, Fish and Chips expressed his distaste for moe and after some back and forth, he gave his perception of what moe was. I include it here because it kind of gets at the kind of thing we will be talking about here.

Anyhow, he posits that moe has two aspects. The first is the aesthetic, which is the most common and immediate association most people have. It's that cute art style. The second is that it is a show where nothing happens, which lends itself to very formulaic iterations of shows that we can trace back to, say, Azumanga Daioh.

I didn't entirely agree, but that was a reasonable enough answer.

What are we talking about?
This leads us to the first problem in many of the arguments about moe~. No one is quite sure how it is defined and it leads to arguments where people aren't arguing about the same thing. However, there are a few things that I can definitely say it isn't.

Moe is not a genre or an art style
This seems to be the biggest misconception, as people keep on talking about "moe anime". Moe is not slice of life. Moe is not harem. Moe is not romance. The concept of moe anime arose as a way to dismiss various anime and so what you got was that people rejecting shows based on a quick judgement of the show's art style and character design.

So what is it?
The simplest explanation is that it is those character traits that people like.

What? That's it?
Well, there's a lot more to it than that and that will come out in a closer examination of why it has influenced anime so much.

A short history
The prior misconceptions skew the origins of moe a bit. It's commonly agreed that the moe boom actually coincides with Evangelion and marks a shift in how otaku thought about and consumed anime. And it's here where I'll reveal that I've just read Hiroki Azuma's Otaku: Japan's Database Animals. The very short version is that Azuma studies otaku as a case study in how society at large is changing how it considers and consumes media.

The contrast in pre- and post-Evangelion can be seen in the comparison between how fans consider Gundam and how they consider Evangelion. The argument is that Gundam (and that generation) is concerned with a "grand narrative". That is, fans are concerned with the world of Gundam and the overarching story.

Evangelion fans, on the other hand, abstract and deconstruct the elements of Evangelion and its characters and are able to be fans of specific traits, divorcing them from the world and narrative of Evangelion. These are things like the various character traits of, say, Rei (silent, blue hair, etc.), but also elements of the world or narrative, but not the world or narrative themselves.

The database
Once these elements are deconstructed, they're thrown into a sort of database which otaku use to do identification and matchings with. When they encounter a new show, they deconstruct it and determine whether it contains those elements that they enjoy.

This is one of the reasons why doujin culture is so prominent. They're able to dissociate those characters and other elements they like from the original work and insert them into an entirely different context. Azuma uses the example of Anno himself placing the characters of Evangelion in the alternate school world in episode 26.

This goes back to Fish's conclusion at the beginning that moe is fairly formulaic, in the sense that you just throw these elements together and you've got yourself another one of these anime. That gets to the heart of the thing pretty closely and it gives a pretty good idea of why people like certain characters based solely on various traits they have.

For instance, take what I have labelled the J.C. Staff tsundere. What traits do Nagi from Hayate the Combat Butler, Shana from Shakugan no Shana, Louise from Zero no Tsukaima, and Taiga from Toradora! have in common? Well, they're all short and small, they're all violent towards their love interest, they're all tsunderes, and they're all voiced by Kugimiya Rie. What's interesting is that each of the original works have nothing to do with each other, but somehow came up with four very similar leading ladies.

But why do they keep making anime like this?
Well, this approach applies to much more than the typical "moe anime". Azuma's thesis is that otaku exhibit this mindset, but that the otaku are indicative of a broader cultural shift and is largely a consequence of postmodernity. And why it's popped up in Japan so prominently is largely because of the circumstances behind the importation of American culture in the post-war period.

Again, note that Evangelion was one of the progenitors of this mindset and the Rebuild movies are a pretty good example of being able to place characters in a new context (you might disagree, but there are a few interesting points in Rebuild 2.0 that lead to this conclusion). Or look at recent AU Gundam shows and see if you can find all the "Gundam elements" that are hiding in plain sight. Compare that to Gundam Unicorn, which is actually trying to continue the UC timeline.

Also consider something like Umineko no Naku Koro ni. It's all about taking mystery conventions and weaving some sort of meta-narrative about fantasy and mystery. You have your character archtypes, but you also have your standard murder setups, and various elements from generic Japanese and Western spiritualism. And how do fans respond? They tear it apart trying to solve the mystery, examining things all the way down to how someone worded their statements or cataloguing when someone was with someone else.

And this mindset extends beyond anime. Like I mentioned before, doujin culture is huge and it's why things like Touhou and Vocaloid are so huge. People are able to start with something, deconstruct it, and throw it into an entirely different context. With Touhou, it's comedy sketches and music and sidestories. With Vocaloid, it's making music videos and the like.

Further, Azuma appeals to my computer scientist self and brings up computers and the Internet as an example of how we already think like this. The structure of web pages is such that we define elements and relationships and how those elements are rendered depends on the device and the user. The entire idea behind HTML is the separation of form (what we see) and content (the words you want to read). And a lot of computery things consist of this deconstruction and reuse.

What got me thinking about this stuff was in one of my semiotics classes in which the prof was talking about criticism and deconstructionism (something that Azuma talks about in his discussion). She mentioned stuff like plot grammars and that made me realize that a huge reason that I think about anime and other works in this database mindset is the same way I think about math and computer science.

So?
A lot of people take the view that it is moe that is the cancer of the industry, for various reasons. I used to be in that camp, but for various reasons, I now believe that conclusion to be missing on some important aspects of how the business works, the state of the industry compared to how it was in the past, and general cultural considerations. But like Azuma, I think moe is just a consequence and is an indicator of how the way we consume media has changed. And it's a fairly compelling argument because of my new awareness of how I think about these things.

[Cognitive Gear]

Interesting read. To address moe generally, my problem with it is that the things that apparently appeal to everyone else do not appeal to me. I find most of the character archetypes, like tsunderes, to be annoying, unrealistic characters. (unrealistic isn't necessarily a bad thing.)

So in my case, it's a subjective thing.

I do have one question for you:

How did Evangelion, arguably the first popular deconstructionist anime, lead to people suddenly realizing that they had favorite characters and favorite traits of those characters, and that they wanted more of them?

Perhaps I am missing out on something, but I really don't see how the two connect. It could just be that I grew up in the deconstructionist era of media that leads to me not being able to understand not doing such a thing, but there it is. Even in the oldest of stories, character archetypes exist. Were people just not aware of them? I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the reasoning for that.

[Lynna]

mmm...I thought "Moe" was talking about a certain kind of character. It means "budding" in Japanese does it not? So I thought it applied to all characters that emmitted accsessive amounts of "cuteness"

[Atria35]

How did Evangelion, arguably the first popular deconstructionist anime, lead to people suddenly realizing that they had favorite characters and favorite traits of those characters, and that they wanted more of them?

Perhaps I am missing out on something, but I really don't see how the two connect. It could just be that I grew up in the deconstructionist era of media that leads to me not being able to understand not doing such a thing, but there it is. Even in the oldest of stories, character archetypes exist. Were people just not aware of them? I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the reasoning for that.

I thought it was because there was so much symbolism and ideas in the anime that you had to pick it apart- themes, scenes, people- in order to get a lot of it.

Archetypes are the basic personalities that exist within stories, sort of like stereotypes. For instance, the damsel in distress and the hero. Traits are different. Those are individual characteristics that they hold.

[Cognitive Gear]

I thought it was because there was so much symbolism and ideas in the anime that you had to pick it apart- themes, scenes, people- in order to get a lot of it.

Archetypes are the basic personalities that exist within stories, sort of like stereotypes. For instance, the damsel in distress and the hero. Traits are different. Those are individual characteristics that they hold.

But that's the thing- Did people not realize that they liked particular traits or archetypes? It seems odd to me that people wouldn't have noticed these things.

Also as far as I have been able to tell, in moe there are certain character archetypes that are used. There is the tsundere, the yandere, etc. Though to be fair, I haven't watched a whole lot of "moe" shows, so they could just be using individual traits over and over and I would never know. But from the outside looking in, it looks an awful lot like character archetypes.

[blkmage]

I don't think that Evangelion caused people to change how they thought about this stuff; rather, I think that it's considered a fairly big indicator of when and how things were shifting to the model we have now, especially since it's compared quite frequently to the last big thing, which was Gundam. And I don't think it's a conscious shift either, so people wouldn't be articulating that they want x, they'd just find a thing and like it because of x.

I'd say it's a more general social thing that no one noticed until they studied it in retrospect. Azuma notes that during the 90s, a lot of scholarly work was more and more focused on complex systems, so some of that must've bled over to or was a reflection of the general public, especially with things like the Internet becoming mainstream. And of course, 1990s Japan had its own special set of socioeconomic challenges, a lot of the consequences of which they're still dealing with today.

[Cognitive Gear]

[quote="blkmage (post: 1456154)"]I don't think that Evangelion caused people to change how they thought about this stuff]
Ah, that makes sense. It still strikes me as odd that people didn't notice what archetypes and traits they liked, but like I said earlier, this could just be because I grew up at a time when deconstructionist storytelling was in the public eye. It's very difficult to understand what it is like to be unaware of something that you'e grown up having an understanding of.

[ShiroiHikari]

Maybe I'm the odd one out but I-- I like Gundam for the characters.

Anyway. I, too, find it sort of...odd...that people only just figured out that hey, they like a certain type of character more than certain other types of characters. I've been that way all my life. ┐(´～`；)┌

I think that being inclined to like a character based solely on the fact that they have red hair, or are aggressive, or whatever other set of traits you can come up with, is what "moe" is. As has been said before, Fish is "moe" for old dudes in anime. If there's an old dude in the show he's more likely to watch it. Whereas I seem to be "moe" for young guys in pilot suits. (;´ρ`)

[blkmage]

I wouldn't say they didn't notice, but rather, before, that would not be all you needed to win someone over. That is, in the 80s, otaku were most concerned about things surrounding the narrative. In the 90s forward, otaku are most concerned about particular elements, regardless of the narrative that they're set against. Where before, someone would like a character because of the character as a whole, now, someone is likely to like a character because of the specific elements that make up the character.

And these elements have a lot more granularity than just archetypes. At it's most fundamental definition, anything can be moe, since it's just a trait that someone really, really likes. Tsundere is an actual personality trait, but these can be things as inconsequential as characters with cat ears or maid costumes. It can be relational like 'is a childhood friend'.

[Nate]

I've seen "moe" described as "anything you don't like about an anime" which I have to say is probably a pretty accurate definition as far as how people use it.

"Pandering" is another word that's used in much the same way. If you don't like something it's "pandering to otaku."

[Radical Dreamer]

The archetype thing is really, really strange to me. If Evangelion came out in 1995, does that really mean Japanese people didn't realize what their favorite characters/character traits were until then? I mean, I'm not all that familiar with Japan's history of media, entertainment, and storytelling, but archetypes have been around since Greek mythology. XD Did Japan just jump on the bandwagon really late with that, being voluntarily cut off from the rest of the world for so long, or am I just really misinterpreting this? XD

[Rocketshipper]

For some reason, I was convinced that "moe" reffered to "cute underage fanservicey girls (or shows about them) that mostly male otaku are obsessed with, and that kind of straddles the line between "normal" and "pedophilia/child porn"". lol, long definition.

tvtropes defines it as ""Moe" (萌え) is an ill-defined otaku term that means, amongst others, "cute," "huggable," "endearing." While it's sometimes used to describe a series, it's more about a specific kind of character. Can also incorporate sexiness, to some. To others it invokes a Big Brother Instinct.

Or to put it another way, Moe is the ability of a character to instill in the audience an irrational desire to hug them, protect them, comfort them, help them with whatever they need/want, etc. "

Full Link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Moe

[Cognitive Gear]

For some reason, I was convinced that "moe" reffered to "cute underage fanservicey girls (or shows about them) that mostly male otaku are obsessed with, and that kind of straddles the line between "normal" and "pedophilia/child porn"". lol, long definition.

tvtropes defines it as ""Moe" (萌]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Moe[/url]

TVtropes pretty much sums up what I don't like about moe, and even gives the definition as best I understood it before this. Moe is annoying because it is so often cheaply exploitive of what I can only assume are lonely otaku. I'm certain that this isn't universally the case, but it certainly seems that way quite a lot.

That said, I try to not actively avoid shows simply because they contain moe elements. I do, however, avoid shows that showcase it extensively.

[blkmage]

I've seen "moe" described as "anything you don't like about an anime" which I have to say is probably a pretty accurate definition as far as how people use it.

"Pandering" is another word that's used in much the same way. If you don't like something it's "pandering to otaku."

Pretty much. Hopefully, we won't do that because we are not dumb.

The archetype thing is really, really strange to me. If Evangelion came out in 1995, does that really mean Japanese people didn't realize what their favorite characters/character traits were until then? I mean, I'm not all that familiar with Japan's history of media, entertainment, and storytelling, but archetypes have been around since Greek mythology. XD Did Japan just jump on the bandwagon really late with that, being voluntarily cut off from the rest of the world for so long, or am I just really misinterpreting this? XD

I mentioned it earlier, but Azuma is not saying that Japan suddenly discovered character traits in the mid-90s. What he's saying is that otaku now have learned to completely separate elements of characters from the characters, context, and meaning that they were originally placed in and that elements do not necessarily have to be traits or archetypes.

Full Link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Moe

TVtropes pretty much sums up what I don't like about moe, and even gives the definition as best I understood it before this.

I deliberately avoided invoking TVTropes and other popular definitions of the term precisely because it's often loaded and written from the perspective of the people that Nate mentioned above. If we started from there, we'd just end up with 'well, they're lonely pedos, I guess'.

I think a very large part in the Western fanbase's misunderstanding of the concept is because we don't really watch anime in the same way as the Japanese do quite yet. We're still drawn by things that have bring the whole narrative package to the table, while that just isn't a priority anymore for them.

And let me clarify. That doesn't mean that they don't pay attention to narrative. They do, but they think about it in the same way they think about characters: by deconstructing it into its parts and analyzing them that way. Again, the database theory is doesn't only include character elements, but also world and plot and narrative and presentation elements.

I suspect it's the reason why a lot of us did not enjoy Sora no Woto.

[ShiroiHikari]

I mentioned it earlier, but Azuma is not saying that Japan suddenly discovered character traits in the mid-90s. What he's saying is that otaku now have learned to completely separate elements of characters from the characters, context, and meaning that they were originally placed in and that elements do not necessarily have to be traits or archetypes.

I think a very large part in the Western fanbase's misunderstanding of the concept is because we don't really watch anime in the same way as the Japanese do quite yet. We're still drawn by things that have bring the whole narrative package to the table, while that just isn't a priority anymore for them.

And let me clarify. That doesn't mean that they don't pay attention to narrative. They do, but they think about it in the same way they think about characters: by deconstructing it into its parts and analyzing them that way. Again, the database theory is doesn't only include character elements, but also world and plot and narrative and presentation elements.

Ohhh. This makes a lot more sense now.

[ich1990]

To me a "moe" character is a female who is written to be excessively ignorant, helpless, and pathetic. Incidentally, these are all traits I despise in characters, especially female ones. This wouldn't be so bad if "moe" characters were isolated to a few shows where it actually made sense for a character to have these traits, but it has unfortunately metastasized within anime culture and is choking the life out of shows that might otherwise be good. Cancer of the anime industry? Sounds accurate to me.

[blkmage]

To me a "moe" character is a female who is written to be excessively ignorant, helpless, and pathetic. Incidentally, these are all traits I despise in characters, especially female ones. This wouldn't be so bad if "moe" characters were isolated to a few shows where it actually made sense for a character to have these traits, but it has unfortunately metastasized within anime culture and is choking the life out of shows that might otherwise be good. Cancer of the anime industry? Sounds accurate to me.

Even in the least generous definitions of the term, I'm pretty sure it's generally recognized upon that:
1. Moe is not exclusive to female characters
2. It does not mean ignorant
3. It does not mean helpless
4. It does not mean pathetic

Example: Haruhi is commonly brought up as a moe anime. Using what most people understand to be moe, there are three moe characters: Haruhi, Yuki, and Mikuru. Only one of these, Mikuru, would fall under your definition. Yuki, on the other hand, is the least ignorant, least helpless, and least pathetic character in the series.

There are plenty of characters who aren't female, ignorant, helpless, and/or pathetic but are considered moe and exhibit those aspects that people hate about moe characters. But this goes back to what I said about how no one is quite sure how it's defined and so we end up talking about different things and drawing wildly different conclusions because we started off with different definitions.

I am interested in which shows that you feel that an ignorant, helpless, and pathetic character single-handedly ruined. I know a lot of shows where most of the characters were just a bunch of random elements thrown together that were bad, but I don't know of any where that one character ruined it.

I think that you hit an important point in raising the issue of context. Like I said before, otaku are at a point where context and meaning are secondary to structural elements. This is probably what makes it really hard to make anime that both Japan and not-Japan would enjoy.

[Radical Dreamer]

This wouldn't be so bad if "moe" characters were isolated to a few shows where it actually made sense for a character to have these traits, but it has unfortunately metastasized within anime culture and is choking the life out of shows that might otherwise be good.

This is sort of where the whole thing falls apart for me. Even if moe refers to more than the "Mikuru" type of character, it doesn't change the fact that the same characters are in every show. It's a case of, "oh, there's another female character who's emotionally distant and controlling and mean, but sometimes she's not!" Or, "oh, there's another character who's completely stoic and knows everything!" XD

I don't really think a show can be successfully "character-driven" when the narrative/context of the story isn't that interesting (subjective, of course, and I'm mostly referring to the badly done slice-of-life genre here). Even more so, a character-driven story fails when the characters aren't that interesting. How can you develop a tsundere's character? If the development is usually, "all of the sudden, she's vulnerable," where do you go beyond that? Add in the fact that many moe shows concentrate on sexualizing the characters for the niche otaku, and you can count me (and apparently a host of other people, both inside and outside of Japan) out, most certainly. XD

This isn't to say that characters aren't capable of driving a story, because they definitely are. The thing is, those characters have to become more than the archetype they seem to be, and I just haven't seen that happen with the typical moe stereotypes. XD

Also, I always thought the point of the Haruhi series was to make fun of moe and other anime stereotypes while also telling a good story, but it seems like people latch onto it less as a satire and more as an addition to the genre itself. Which is kind of a shame, really. XD

[Kaori]

So what is it?
The simplest explanation is that it is those character traits that people like.

So, moe is not one particular character type, because any number of different character types can be considered moe . . .

Even if moe refers to more than the "Mikuru" type of character, it doesn't change the fact that the same characters are in every show.

And if I understand the OP correctly, moe is not the presence of certain character “archetypes,â€

[Yamamaya]

To me a "moe" character is a female who is written to be excessively ignorant, helpless, and pathetic. Incidentally, these are all traits I despise in characters, especially female ones. This wouldn't be so bad if "moe" characters were isolated to a few shows where it actually made sense for a character to have these traits, but it has unfortunately metastasized within anime culture and is choking the life out of shows that might otherwise be good. Cancer of the anime industry? Sounds accurate to me.

If you want to define all moe characters as ignorant, helpless, and pathetic than I would assume many male characters such as Shinji Ikari as moe. In addition, many male characters from harem/romance animes would fall under that definition.

Moe is such a subjective term that is very hard to apply direct words to it. Moe generally is meant to create a feeling of endearment to a character. This can be done by making them cute, innocent, or sympathetic.

Another underlying assumption that tends to be made about moe characters is that they are submissive. However, wouldn't this be more reasonable if the character is shy or has low self esteem like ole Shinji? Not to mention the fact that certain characters considered moe are far from submissive such as the entire cast of Azumanga Daioh and Clannad.

[blkmage]

Kaori hit most of the things I wanted to mention.

Even more so, a character-driven story fails when the characters aren't that interesting. How can you develop a tsundere's character? If the development is usually, "all of the sudden, she's vulnerable," where do you go beyond that? Add in the fact that many moe shows concentrate on sexualizing the characters for the niche otaku, and you can count me (and apparently a host of other people, both inside and outside of Japan) out, most certainly. XD

Sexualization is a related but different problem. That is, moe does not necessarily lead to sexualization, see K-ON!. Please don't try to argue that it is, because at that point, you can claim anything is sexualized. Kyoto Animation, arguably the most disparaged as moe central studio has produced some of the least sexualized moe shows.

How do you develop a tsundere? It's certainly possible and it's been done. Ryougi Shiki in Kara no Kyoukai is a tsundere. But she's not only a tsundere and she never really ends up showing any moments of vulnerability. This doesn't sound like a problem with moe, this sounds like a problem with bad writing. It's pretty easy to hate on sci-fi if all I've experienced of it is Star Wars Episodes I-III.

And here's the thing, all of these elements that you've decried can be just as easily found and deconstructed out of any other work. This is part of the database theory. You don't need to watch a "moe anime" or an anime with "moe characters" to get moe elements. The problem comes when producers get lazy and write something bad in which the characters are just those elements and nothing else.

This is why we end up with anime plots that sound like they were generated by a random walk on a Markov chain and the characters are every archetype and character design we've seen before.

And I'd like to clarify that just because otaku deconstruct all of these things when they watch it does not imply that producers necessarily construct things in the same way. Poorly written stuff will have very one-note characters, just like you'd expect from anywhere else. Well written stuff will look just like a normal (say, what someone would consider non-moe) anime and be coherent and interesting, but otaku will still deconstruct it and identify the elements that they find.

and I'm mostly referring to the badly done slice-of-life genre here

Are you referring to slice of life that is done poorly here or are you disparaging the entire genre? On a side note, I'm pretty surprised that most people on this board specifically seem to associate moe with slice of life, when the more broad generalization is with harem series. Further, there are plenty of slice of life anime and manga that do not conform to the four girls doing stuff model. Not that there's anything wrong with that model, because, like I said before, it's a matter of whether the writing is good or not.

Also, I always thought the point of the Haruhi series was to make fun of moe and other anime stereotypes while also telling a good story, but it seems like people latch onto it less as a satire and more as an addition to the genre itself. Which is kind of a shame, really. XD

Haruhi is not a parody. This isn't obvious if you've only seen the anime, but Disappearance and the other light novels in the series are trying to tell an actual story that isn't just the adventures of the SOS Brigade. It's sort of like Ouran in the sense that the opening act is parody, but it turns into something more substantial pretty soon after.

. . . but rather, the moe phenomenon centers around the fact that people isolate certain elements that they like (e.g. a character with glasses) and focus on that to the exclusion of everything else? So, it is not any one character trait, and is not the presence of stereotypical kinds of characters (the tsundere girl, the angry and broody guy), but a way of responding to characters? Correct me if I’]
Nope, that's pretty much it. As for elements, you can have relational elements, like 'is a childhood friend of' or 'is the older sister of'. You can have "meta" elements like 'is voiced by x'. You can have behaviourial elements like 'ends sentences with some annoying verbal tic'.

As for plot or world elements, there's things like 'takes place in a high school'. There's a reason why so many anime take place in high schools. It's because it provides a framework for things that will happen. There's going to be seating arrangements (that window at the back corner by the window). There's going to be upperclassmen. There's going to be clubs. There's going to be cultural festivals and sports days.

Or we have genre elements. Take real robot, for instance. You've got the 'prototypes are always better than mass-produced mecha' element. Or in super robot, we've got calling out attack names. In magical girl, we're going to have mascot characters and transformation scenes.

These non-character elements are a huge reason why a lot of comedy anime are very referential in nature and why there are a lot of plots in anime that have elaborate meta-narratives. A lot of visual novels do this by taking advantage of the multiple branching path structure of the game to tie everything together into one coherent story.

<stuff about deconstructionism>

You're right in that Azuma is heavily influenced by this sort of stuff and those names do pop up in his book a lot. Apparently he's a Derrida scholar. You'll have to forgive me because I don't actually know anything about criticism or whatever other than what I've read casually.

Before he introduces the database model, he spends about a third of the book setting up the cultural and social situation that Japan is in, starting all the way from the end of the Second World War. You'll have to wait until I get home so I can go through that part in the book again to extract his timeline of what happened, but it involves a lot of stuff with the importation of American culture and having to go back to Edo Japan to get really Japanese elements and stuff.

But he does stress that while he chose to study otaku, he believes it's indicative of a broader social trend in how we all consume media. His main example is in the structure of the World Wide Web, but things like mashups and Internet memes also fall into the same deconstruction and recombination process.

[Cognitive Gear]

I think that you hit an important point in raising the issue of context. Like I said before, otaku are at a point where context and meaning are secondary to structural elements. This is probably what makes it really hard to make anime that both Japan and not-Japan would enjoy.

To me, this seems like this type of scenario: (wherein two people are looking at structures made of legos)

Person A favors a small, simple flat roofed house made of lego bricks because some of the bricks are red, and none of the bricks are blue. The structure of the house doesn't matter as much as the color of some of those bricks.

Person B favors a giant, complex castle because they have an appreciation for the skill and planning that went into it. Sure, there are some red bricks and they like those, but they don't like the whole thing just because it has red bricks, just like they don't dislike the whole thing just because it has blue bricks.


My point being, as someone who routinely deconstructs stories and characters to their parts to see how that structure came together to form such an interesting whole, being interested in an entire show just because "that girl is shy and wears glasses" seems incredibly strange. This is probably a gross oversimplification, but this is the extent of my understanding of moe.

Which to me, sounds like something else entirely. Taking things out of thier original context and putting them into other places or situations is something that has been done for a long time, notably in old American cartoons which often had characters, like Mickey Mouse, moving through time and space without any impediment or explanation. Sometimes he was in a modern setting, other times he was back in post-civil war America, and sometimes he was in other countries or even in space. His character would often change depending on the context he was placed into as well. However, his core traits always stayed the same and was what brought the comedy to the table. (you could say the same for Donald Duck, Bugs Bunny, Batman etc)

But these old characters aren't moe. They are taken out of their normal context and placed into new ones very frequently, but I don't think anyone would call them moe.

Now, I would agree that this idea of moving characteristics or characters or whatever out of their original contexts and into new places is definitely a cause for the popularity of moe, I just don't know that it itself is moe.

[Nate]

"cute underage fanservicey girls (or shows about them) that mostly male otaku are obsessed with, and that kind of straddles the line between "normal" and "pedophilia/child porn"".

You've just described perfectly my favorite manga, Kodomo no Jikan. And I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe that as "moe." I've heard it described as a bunch of other things though.

[ich1990]

Even in the least generous definitions of the term, I'm pretty sure it's generally recognized upon that:
1. Moe is not exclusive to female characters
2. It does not mean ignorant
3. It does not mean helpless
4. It does not mean pathetic

I don't know who coins these definitions, but that is pretty much exactly what it means. At least that is how we use the term within my social circle. If that isn't what moe is, than my comments are misplaced and I will leave those of you who have the proper definition to fight it out.

Example: Haruhi is commonly brought up as a moe anime. Using what most people understand to be moe, there are three moe characters: Haruhi, Yuki, and Mikuru. Only one of these, Mikuru, would fall under your definition. Yuki, on the other hand, is the least ignorant, least helpless, and least pathetic character in the series.

Okay. I have no idea what Haruhi is about so I have no reason to disagree with you. I would add the caveat that "least ignorant, helpless, and pathetic character in the series" doesn't necessarily mean that the character isn't still ignorant, helpless, and pathetic.

There are plenty of characters who aren't female, ignorant, helpless, and/or pathetic but are considered moe and exhibit those aspects that people hate about moe characters. But this goes back to what I said about how no one is quite sure how it's defined and so we end up talking about different things and drawing wildly different conclusions because we started off with different definitions.

Right, which is why I defined what moe means to me at the start of my paragraph, and then used that definition to tell you why I disliked it. You aren't using that definition, so I am not really sure where you are going with your Haruhi argument.

I am interested in which shows that you feel that an ignorant, helpless, and pathetic character single-handedly ruined.

I am afraid I just don't watch enough anime to run across this very often, and when I do I ditch it as soon as possible. There are two, however, that contained a characters that annoyed the heck out of me and almost made me drop the show: Durarara!! (Anri), and Sengoku Basara (the Devil King's sister). Thankfully, both turned out to be subversions of that character type. Oh, and Higurashi as well, although I knew that the show was made as a direct affront to such character types before I watched it.

I think that you hit an important point in raising the issue of context. Like I said before, otaku are at a point where context and meaning are secondary to structural elements. This is probably what makes it really hard to make anime that both Japan and not-Japan would enjoy.

Perhaps this is the real cancer of anime (more than any one specific obnoxious trait)? The Japanese seem to just want shows that contain all the elements they like, regardless of how well they are put together: love triangle? Check. Robots? Check. Maids? Check. Bad guy with blond hair? Check. Okay, it is a good show. Whereas Westerners want a coherent story that is well put together and told, regardless of what genre or story elements it has.

EDIT:

If you want to define all moe characters as ignorant, helpless, and pathetic than I would assume many male characters such as Shinji Ikari as moe. In addition, many male characters from harem/romance animes would fall under that definition.

Except Shinji is a male. To be fair, I dislike males that are ignorant, helpless, and pathetic as well, but I wouldn't call them moe.

[Nate]

I don't know who coins these definitions, but that is pretty much exactly what it means. At least that is how we use the term within my social circle. If that isn't what moe is, than my comments are misplaced and I will leave those of you who have the proper definition to fight it out.

Then you are, sadly, using it wrong. This is what I meant earlier when I said that the term "moe" is pretty much used to mean "things I hate in anime." Hate cutesy girls? They're moe. Don't like tsunderes? They're moe too. Hate it when a girl is airheaded? Totally moe.

Which is why you have people on message boards calling Puella Magi Madoka Magica a moe anime. Despite the fact that the series has had character deaths, is dark in nature, is based on the German folklore of Faust and revolves around sacrificing your soul for a wish, and is written by Gen Urobuchi, it's still a "moe" anime. Why? Because it's a magical girl anime and the main character is a pink-haired high school girl. To people who hate that stuff, that automatically makes Madoka "moe" despite the content and nature of the series.

And yes, I've even seen Evangelion described as a moe anime. Why? Because people thought Rei was pandering to ronery otaku and was therefore moe.

And this is the problem with the use of the term "moe," and why it can't be the cancer killing the anime industry because everyone has a different definition for it.

You aren't using that definition, so I am not really sure where you are going with your Haruhi argument.

He was using the Haruhi argument as an example of a show with characters that are considered moe that don't fit your definition (such as Yuki), just as how Yamamaya was using another one (Shinji).

You are free to use the word as you please, I guess, but the point is you're using it incorrectly. I'm sure that doesn't bother you, and that is fine, but the point of this thread is exactly that, to show people "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[ShiroiHikari]

So basically the term "moe" means like 85 different things that nobody can agree on? Maybe we should just stop using it then.

[mechana2015]

More like it means one thing, but nobody in the US at least uses that definition and instead applies one of the other 85 social definitions that nobody can agree on to whatever they personally think it means. So yeah the term should probably stop getting thrown around.

[Cognitive Gear]

So out of boredom and curiosity, I looked up moe on wikipedia. I figured that if there was any place to get some decent generally unbiased information about it on the net, wikipedia would be as good as any.

Here's what it has to say:

Moe (萌]) is a Japanese slang word. One expert claims it is derived from a Japanese word which literally means "budding", as with a plant that is about to flower, and thus it can also be used to mean "budding" as with a preadolescent girl. The word has come to be used to mean one particular kind of "adorable", one specific type of "cute", mainly as applied to fictional characters.
The word is occasionally spelled Moé, and was originally related to a strong interest in a particular type or style of character in video games, anime or manga. "Moe!" is also used within anime fandom as an interjection referring to a character the speaker considers to be a moekko (a blossoming or "budding" girl).

This seems to go along with my suspicions: Moe does have a definition, but it is a broad definition. It's a set of character archetypes. The article goes on:

There are various interpretations of what moe is today. Joseph L. Dela Pena argues that moe is a pure, protective feeling towards a female character, without the sexualization of lolicon.[18] Jason Thompson of Otaku USA regards moe when applied to young female characters or people as being an offshoot of the lolicon phenomenon and the role of cuteness in Japanese culture.[19] Scott Von Schilling sees moe in this sense as being indicative of men in their thirties "longing for fatherhood".[20]

In response to the growing otaku fetishization of cute female characters in anime and manga, Japanese animator and self-avowed feminist Hayao Miyazaki has stated:“] ”

Enomoto Nariko, a yaoi author and manga critic says that "male fans cannot experience moe until they have fixed their own position". Tamaki Saitō explains that a male fan's "position" is his position as a subject, which the male fan must establish before he can desire an object. In this view, moe characters are agents of the male fan's desire. Enomoto Nariko compares male fans to fujoshi, who she says are primarily attracted to phases of a relationship, for example the point at which a friendly relationship becomes romantic.[22]

So now I am back to square one. If moe is not a word that describes the things noted in the wikipedia article, then I'm not sure what use the word even has. I suppose it could mean, "That show has a bunch of traits that were lifted from other shows and had other traits added" but I feel like that is completely useless and descriptive of 99% of all stories.

Anyways, given the confusion in the US over this word, it wouldn't be the first time that a word was misappropriated to mean something it shouldn't, and it won't be the last. I really don't see the problem with using the word as the pejorative version of "cutesy". (though with the subjectiveness of such a thing, it would probably be better for it to not be used at all.)

[ich1990]

Then you are, sadly, using it wrong....You are free to use the word as you please, I guess, but the point is you're using it incorrectly.

No, no I am not. Not within my normal social circle. When I talk to my friends and describe something as moe, they know exactly what it means. I am not using it incorrectly. Not unless you know the Real True Definition of moe that everyone agrees with, which, as far as I have seen in this thread and elsewhere, you can't.

Words are subjective, as I am sure MSP would point out if he where here right now. You can't say I am objectively wrong when what we are talking about is inherently subjective. At most you can say I am wrong based upon the common definition prescribed to the word by the social circle I am inhabiting. Since you don't know me or my social circle and the English language has no set meaning for the word, you are the one who is wrong.

He was using the Haruhi argument as an example of a show with characters that are considered moe that don't fit your definition (such as Yuki), just as how Yamamaya was using another one (Shinji).

Okay, that makes sense. Other people have different definitions of the word. I understand that.

the point of this thread is exactly that, to show people "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I thought this thread was for us to discuss what moe actually means or doesn't mean, and what impact the various character traits that broadly fall under the word "moe" are having on the anime industry. A deconstruction of the word and the ideas and the traits behind it as applied to entertainment viewership.

As far as I can tell the only one trying to "fix" other people's definitions is you.

[Radical Dreamer]

Okay guyyysss, let's focus on being civil and respectful and remembering that this is a thread about anime and the definition of the word moé. Don't get too carried away.

That being said, I am now 100% confused and have decided that I just don't like the word at all and would rather just focus on watching series that I enjoy. XD I will come back with a bigger and more detailed reply later on; right now I just want to get this cautionary post up. XD