モノスゴク萌エル。 A moe~ thread.

[MasterDias]

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.

Not sure I agree that words are subjective.
It's true that words can change over time, but you can't just arbitrarily assign them new meanings. The whole point we're trying to get at is that the actual correct Japanese definition of "Moe" isn't the definition you (and a great many other people apparently) are using.

[ShiroiHikari]

Words are not that subjective. You can't just make up your own definitions for words and then expect other people to know what the hell you're talking about. That defeats the entire purpose of language.

[ich1990]

The point is, words are totally subjective. The only reason people know "what the hell I am talking about" is because we all have the same subjective meaning for words. If you don't believe me look at the word "gay" and what it used to mean versus what it means now, or what the word "bad" can mean depending on the social circle you are in.

Also, for what it is worth I didn't arbitrarily assign a new meaning to the word moe. That definition is one that I learned from someone else. I have no idea who came up with it.

Is there an official Japanese definition?

[blkmage]

Japanese Wikipedia run through Google Translate says

At present, have been used in various fields, originally slang - slang , because the debate over the interpretation and constant usage.

That said, I do think your definition is way too narrow, at least for this discussion and as demonstrated by the examples earlier.

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.

This, I think is one of the few criticisms of moe that I think is fair and reasonable and grounded in something other than what some guy says is moe. That is, otaku are too ready to just accept something because it contains a thing and end up rewarding lazy creators. I have to keep on qualifying that I don't think that every anime that is made under this new system is necessarily bad.

It is entirely possible to have a good, coherent, interesting anime that arises from the same kind of database mentality. Like I've stressed before, it comes down to whether the writing is good or not. My favourite anime from 2009, Bakemonogatari, is extremely database-constructed, but it manages to be excellent because the characters are interesting, their interactions are interesting, and what the author is trying to say is interesting.

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.

Cog's LEGO® example is a pretty good, if simplified analogy. It's more like Person A likes red bricks wherever they can find them, whether it's in a simple house or a complex castle. Why? Because it doesn't really matter what it starts out as, because they're just going to tear the entire thing apart and just look at the bricks anyway. BUT, (and this is a thing that may not have been emphasised enough) when they're going through the bricks, they're keeping track of the bricks they see for the next time they tear down a castle or something.

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.

Moe isn't a thing. Moe is an adjective for describing characteristics. I like Azuma's use of the term, because he always calls it chara-moe or moe elements. As for Mickey Mouse, I can't say, but I do find it interesting that his last (arguably) big appearance was in Kingdom Hearts, a JRPG in which the protagonists are just going around to various random Disney locales for no real reason.



The main problem with moe as a term is that it's now loaded. Like Nate has brought up, it's used to immediately dismiss or disparage anything that someone doesn't like. Whenever I do use the term, I try and qualify it somehow so that I'm not misunderstood. Or I'm being ironic and sarcastic.

I think it'd be extremely helpful if we brought up an example or two of the kind of thing we trying to explain just so we can get an idea of where we're coming from and we have something to associate with.

[Nate]

The point is, words are totally subjective.

While this is true, we do have to have at least some objective standard for certain words If purple monkey dishwasher, upholstered tapesicle itch machine, communication would be absolutely impossible.

The problem is when you start using a word to mean something in a circle of friends, when you try to talk to people outside your circle of friends, you're going to be misunderstood and corrected...which is what happened with this thread. You said "This is moe," and to you and your friends that's fine, but when you say it to someone else they're going to say "No it's not and here's why," like blkmage did with the Haruhi thing.

I've tried to avoid using terms like "moe" or "pandering" for the simple reason that it's easy to dismiss things you don't like by referring to them in a derogatory manner...until you realize that the things you like are dismissed in much the same way.

To use an example blkmage used earlier, I might say "A short and small tsundere character? That's totally moe crap pandering to Japanese manchildren" if I don't like short and small tsundere characters. However, then I think about shows I like such as, say, Pretty Cure. "A young girl transforming to fight monsters while trying to balance that with her school and love life? That's totally moe crap pandering to Japanese manchildren." Or Super Sentai. "A group of goofy looking characters wearing spandex and summoning 'robots' that are really just a guy in a suit? That's just crap for kids and Japanese manchildren."

It's easy to miss that shows you like are pandering to your specific tastes. I like superheroes in spandex and guys in rubber suits that are supposed to be robots. It's awesome! So when say, Tomica Hero Rescue Force came out, despite that it was pretty much a total ripoff of Super Sentai, I loved every minute of it. It was awesome. To someone who hates that kind of formula, it's just "stupid crap pandering to otaku."

And so when a show like I don't know, Monster comes out, I can look at it and just say "Eh, it's not really for me, I'm not into psychological thriller/horror type stuff" rather than "Ha ha totally just pandering to people who think that GRIMDARK and violent = good."

Which of course isn't to say that some anime is just terrible regardless. Like say, Garzey's Wing. And I haven't actually seen it, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of "anime that is terrible no matter what you like" since Spoony and Sage reviewed it.

[Fish and Chips]

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.

"~Kana kana."

Actually, I'm sort of glad this was brought up, as my memetic adoration of awesome old guys is actually a lot closer to the mark than my initial thoughts on what moe was supposed to be. Moe isn't an aesthetic, although it is aesthetic, and it isn't a genre, or even a genre convention like that show that doesn't go anywhere, or obligatory fanservice.

Moe is, boiled down and distilled, trait appeal. Sometimes physical traits, sometimes personality traits, and occasionally a mix of both. It's the expression of a certain level of immediate affection towards certain characteristics and the characters who possess them (irrespective of the context those characters appear in). If there's a distinction between something being moe and a more regular brand of just finding stuff neat, it's probably in the intensity. For example, I happen to like short-haired girls. I wouldn't watch a show exclusively or especially because it featured a short-haired girl, so it's just something I find attractive. However, if having short hair became a sticking point, to the degree that I started shifting through shows looking for short-haired girls or waiting eagerly for shows that promised short-haired girls among the cast, that would (in my opinion) qualify as moe.

So, really, that whole "Fish thinks old guys are moe" thing is actually eerily accurate, as I do like cool old dudes to the point that I'm measurably more likely to watch a show if it features them prominently, though my critical streak still prevents me from watching bad shows just because they have things I think are good in them.

On a tangential note, I'd imagine this is why certain Shounen Manga with cast surpluses tend to do well in Japan. The pool of character designs and personalities to choose from and attach yourself to is large enough to accommodate a wide audience of people who only read for one or two characters.

Now my problem with moe is twofold. Firstly, I like to enjoy characters as a complete package, not a collection of disassociatable traits. Characters are the lifeblood of a story, and in that context I think of them as real people with their own desires and motivations. Distilling likable characters to simply likable character traits, to me, cheapens the worth of the character. One of the chief reasons I frown on fanfiction (standards of writing notwithstanding) is because of its tendency to be OOC for the sake of the writer's wish fulfillment. Did you know Roy x Envy fanfiction exists? I'd find that kind of thing unthinkable, but apparently not. So with this "Recent" moe phenomenon, we have an audience prepared to latch onto a character because they fit a predetermined (frequently fetishistic) checklist, not because this character is actually well-written and earns the audience's interest.

Secondly, I dislike the commercialization of moe as a selling point. Now studios are a profit-driven business, so it's understandable that they'd want their product to sell well in the marketplace, and to that end create likable characters because nobody wants to watch a show with unlikable characters. However, there arrives a point past which this prostitution of characters as commodities is both obvious and insulting. You can tell which girl (and it is usually girls) was designed for which demographic, sometimes even down to the voice actress they picked. there's the clumsy, easily lost, frightened kitten (with hair decs!), there's the cold, authoritative tsundere (with glasses!), and so on. As someone who balks at the audience's stripping down fully-realized characters to their simplest, most marketable traits, it's hard for me to complain about that when the studio churns out characters already stripped down for them. And the more prolific and widespread this tactic becomes, the worse the situation gets. It's become something of a vicious cycle by this point.

Yeah, I'm a hater, and haters gonna hate, but those who've talked to me know I take the art of storytelling, the science of storytelling, very seriously. And when it's become evident that people just aren't trying anymore, that bothers me on an almost philosophical level - doubly so when their perceived lack of effort is generously rewarded nonetheless by the general masses.

[QuirkyIceHeart]

So... are we saying the 'moe' thing is bad? Or just when real character development and story is left out?
I don't see the problem... There's really no difference between choosing a series because it has a tsundere (or whatever) character and choosing a series because it looks cooler or something, right? It's just a thing of preference, just like someone might choose red over blue.

And using you people's definition of moe, I'm moe for people who are somehow cursed or mutated. (Think Allen Walker =P )

(Lol, I always thought moe was just cute stuff, too... Like Lucky Star and Squid Girl. I've only heard it used/defined that way, anyway...)

[ich1990]

That said, I do think your definition is way too narrow, at least for this discussion and as demonstrated by the examples earlier.

Fair enough. It seems the definition I have been using is a fairly non-standard one.

Cog's LEGO® example is a pretty good, if simplified analogy. It's more like Person A likes red bricks wherever they can find them, whether it's in a simple house or a complex castle. Why? Because it doesn't really matter what it starts out as, because they're just going to tear the entire thing apart and just look at the bricks anyway. BUT, (and this is a thing that may not have been emphasised enough) when they're going through the bricks, they're keeping track of the bricks they see for the next time they tear down a castle or something.

If this is moe, then I guess I can't fault people for liking moe. I mean, I am much more likely to watch a show if it is has well written characters, a coherent plotline, a non-standard art style, and females that don't get pushed around. In a way, I deconstruct all of the shows I watch and look for the bricks I like.

While this is true, we do have to have at least some objective standard for certain words If purple monkey dishwasher, upholstered tapesicle itch machine, communication would be absolutely impossible.

That isn't an objective standard, just a really wide subjective one. If you were brought up your whole life learning to say "purple monkey dishwasher" when you were hungry, purple monkey dishwasher would mean "I am hungry". It just wouldn't mean it to very many people and would make communication difficult. You would have to translate this into "normal person" speech if you wanted to talk to anyone else. Incidentally, this is exactly what I did as soon as I mentioned the word moe.

What Fish said, except, can we complain about moe fans who want a yandere in every show when we want a good story in every show?

[blkmage]

words

I agree with this.

If this is moe, then I guess I can't fault people for liking moe. I mean, I am much more likely to watch a show if it is has well written characters, a coherent plotline, a non-standard art style, and females that don't get pushed around. In a way, I deconstruct all of the shows I watch and look for the bricks I like.

I think that I may have been conflating the two things I've been talking about. One is moe, which is a descriptor for traits, as Fish described. The other thing is the database/deconstruction stuff, which is the hypothesized way that otaku are consuming media that gives rise to the obsession with moe elements.

I think the difference between your deconstruction and their deconstruction is that your deconstruction doesn't go quite as far as theirs. That is, well written characters and coherent plots aren't quite bricks yet and are still meaningful structures, like walls or towers or bigger blocks in our hypothetical castle. Which is why the LEGO® metaphor is so apt, because at some point, they deconstruct it to the point where it ceases to be a meaningful structure and all they've got are a pile of bricks.

[Kaori]

My impression was that the point of the thread was to begin with a common definition of moe (Azuma’s), clearing up some common misconceptions while we’re at it, and then discuss from there what the implications or outcomes of it are. I can’t say for sure whether that was really blkmage’s intent, but since it’s hard to discuss anything if everyone has a different definition of it (that results in talking over each other, or talking about different things using the same word, which is confusing), I’m going to attempt to shed a little bit of additional light on the term.

The literal definition of 萌えin Japanese is “to bud; sprout,â€

[Fish and Chips]

What Fish said, except, can we complain about moe fans who want a yandere in every show when we want a good story in every show?

We can and should.

This is probably illustrative of how I think about a lot of things, but I view fiction ("The art of storytelling, the science of storytelling") as something that can be judged by objective criteria. Let me emphasize here that I am talking specifically about "Storytelling," not "Story"]his[/I] story. Oh, Clause and Lavie are still in it, but as bystanders, fulfilling minor roles that could be occupied by anyone on Alex Rowe's crew of ragtag misfits. And yet, despite their tanking drop in importance relative to the plot, the show still drags Clause and Lavie into the spotlight time and time again, shoehorning them into a location of prominence in a plot they literally have no more place in. Their tragic backstory is a trivial afterthought wrapped up in a few seconds of narration near the tail end of the last episode, with no measurable movement between then and when their backstory was originally brought up besides the startling revelation of who is allegedly (and we never get more than "Allegedly") responsible for their fathers' deaths, and even then it still carries more impact for Alex Rowe than it does them.

This is inexcusably bad writing that has nothing to do with taste or personal preference. I can objectively complain that Claus and Lavie were "Left in" their own story because there it is, right there. I'm not even sure how you could miss it, though apparently some do.

Your complaint, "Can we complain about moe fans who want a yandere in every show when we want a good story in every show?" is mistaking What They Want with How We Want It. Whether I order a cheeseburger or you order a salad, we both expect timely service and a certain standard of acceptable quality in our lunch choices.

The problem is there are people out there who only want cheeseburgers, irrespective of how "Good" those cheeseburgers actually are; consequently, restaurants have found it cheaper, and more profitable, to cater exclusively to those customers, leaving those of us who could really go for a salad right about now - to say nothing of those of us with actual standards for cheeseburgers - out of luck.

[Nate]

However, if having short hair became a sticking point, to the degree that I started shifting through shows looking for short-haired girls or waiting eagerly for shows that promised short-haired girls among the cast, that would (in my opinion) qualify as moe.

:l

Crap, that means I'm moe for transforming heroes.

[Yamamaya]

I'm moe for smart blue/purple haired girls such as Kotomi and Yuki, and genki girls.

There's nothing wrong with character archetype, however when that archetype dominates every facet of the character it can get a bit frustrating.
However when these character traits are used in a different way(for example Beatrice can be called a tsundere) it can make a character more dynamic and interesting.

[Rusty Claymore]

The point is, words are totally subjective.

Why thank you! I love this shirt.

[Cognitive Gear]

Ah, this makes much more sense to me now. Though it has also completely lost any use as a descriptor to me. I suppose this will make sifting through series take more effort. Oh well. A lot of the good shows eventually have threads made about them here.

[blkmage]

[quote="Kaori (post: 1456509)"]He’]
You're probably right in that the degree to which that kind of thinking has penetrated society at large is probably not as great as he seems to think. However, I do think that this kind of consumption and thinking is becoming more and more common, like with how memes are constructed, remixed, and propagated through the Internet and mashup/remix culture.

I promise that I'm still reading through to see if I can extract his timeline to get to the 90s database stuff and present it without just copying verbatim (because that would be a lot of typing).

Also! I think there are plenty of good anime that are clearly written in such a way that it appeals to otaku (whether intentionally or not). Interestingly enough, I'm having a much harder time coming up with such titles for manga, which is in contrast with visual novels, which are pretty much consumed exclusively by otaku.

[Fish and Chips]

Also! I think there are plenty of good anime that are clearly written in such a way that it appeals to otaku (whether intentionally or not). Interestingly enough, I'm having a much harder time coming up with such titles for manga, which is in contrast with visual novels, which are pretty much consumed exclusively by otaku.

Probably because Manga is both significantly cheaper and more socially accepted in Japan.

[KeybladeWarrior]

This thread has been quite helpful. Thank you very much.

I would be moe for maids, shy girls, and controversial and dark subjects?

[Kaori]

Also! I think there are plenty of good anime that are clearly written in such a way that it appeals to otaku (whether intentionally or not).

You would know better than I would, since I've hardly watched any anime at all in recent years--nothing at all particularly marketed to otaku. And I'm not saying that I think it's impossible to create good shows using that approach, just that it seems likely to produce bad art more frequently than good art.

Probably because Manga is both significantly cheaper and more socially accepted in Japan.

As someone who lives in Japan, I can attest to this. According to the Japanese mentality, it is okay for a normal person to read manga, but anime fans are those weird, creepy, potentially stalkerish people who live in their (or their parents’) basements.

I would be moe for maids, shy girls, and controversial and dark subjects?

Only if you disregard larger structural elements, such as plot, in going out of your way to watch anime that have those elements you like. If you particularly go out of your way to watch an anime because it has maids, or because the main character is a shy girl, or something, and if other considerations (such as whether the storyline is interesting or the overall quality of the anime) are at most of secondary importance to you, then yes. As the Japanese Wikipedia article says, a more general/casual/mild liking of a character trait is not “moeâ€

[ich1990]

[quote="Fish"]This is probably illustrative of how I think about a lot of things, but I view fiction ("The art of storytelling, the science of storytelling") as something that can be judged by objective criteria. Let me emphasize here that I am talking specifically about "Storytelling," not "Story"]While I disagree with the above, I can't deny that the paralytic nature of recent moe fads results in net loss for the anime viewer. Moe, in its current iteration, has squandered much potential, and regardless of whether quality can be subjectively or objectively measured, that is bad. If we never move outside of the present, if we never experiment, if we are never creative, then we will never invent stuff that we like even more than what we currently have.

Moe in itself isn't the cancer of anime. Moe inspired complacency is.

[crusader88]

I adore moe, but this discussion is a bit deep for me. In case you're interested I recently read an interesting blog post/commentary on moe.

http://neoshinka.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/sankaku-moe-is-the-cancer-killing-animu-yamamoto-stance/