Cognitive Gear (post: 1456120) wrote: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.
Atria35 (post: 1456139) wrote: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.
Rocketshipper (post: 1456207) wrote: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]
Nate (post: 1456171) wrote: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 (post: 1456187) wrote: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 (post: 1456207) wrote:Full Link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Moe
Cognitive Gear (post: 1456212) wrote:TVtropes pretty much sums up what I don't like about moe, and even gives the definition as best I understood it before this.
blkmage (post: 1456215) wrote: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.
ich1990 (post: 1456228) wrote: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.
ich1990 (post: 1456228) wrote: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.
blkmage wrote:So what is it?
The simplest explanation is that it is those character traits that people like.
Radical Dreamer wrote: 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.
ich1990 (post: 1456228) wrote: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.
Radical Dreamer (post: 1456267) wrote: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
Radical Dreamer (post: 1456267) wrote:and I'm mostly referring to the badly done slice-of-life genre here
Radical Dreamer (post: 1456267) wrote: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 (post: 1456275) wrote:. . . 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.Kaori (post: 1456275) wrote:<stuff about deconstructionism>
blkmage (post: 1456260) wrote: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.
Rocketshipper wrote:"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"".
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.blkmage (post: 1456260) wrote: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
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.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.
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.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 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 am interested in which shows that you feel that an ignorant, helpless, and pathetic character single-handedly ruined.
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.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.
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.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.
ich1990 wrote: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.
You aren't using that definition, so I am not really sure where you are going with your Haruhi argument.
wikipedia wrote: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).
Criticism wrote: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]
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.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.
Okay, that makes sense. Other people have different definitions of the word. I understand that.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).
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.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."
Return to Anime and Anime Reviews
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests