Forum - View topicANNCast - Moe Money, Moe Problems
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brent Allison
 Posts: 2444 Location: Athens-Clarke County, GA, USA |
|
|||||||||
|
What if "moe" can be described less as a set of interrelated characteristics and more as a process? That is, not simply the presence of subjective feelings of "burning" or protection that a work (intentionally or not) inspires in an audience. Rather, moe might be described as the producer-inspired perceptive interplay between a thematic context of disruption and a situated lack of cute character agency that produces an "imagined vacuum" of assumed benevolent authority filled by an empowered normative character or, more subtly, the audience member. That is, ordinary "cuteness" vis-a-vis Hello Kitty is not enough. The possibility if not presence of "disruption" (be it physical danger, clumsiness, emotional breakdown, etc.) and an imagined figure to right this disruption are key to this process that does not result in moe so much as is moe.
EDIT: In the case of clumsiness, it may be an endearing characteristic of the cute character that in itself need not to be righted, but the effects of it (e.g. preemptively wiping away a spill on the floor, kissing a boo-boo after the fact) would be assumed by the audience to need provision by someone else. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||
This proposal is adequately detailed to be both mature and plausible, though I have this to ask: Is the need for such authority necessary to bring about this interplay, or is it merely sufficient? You give the example of the effects of traits such as clumsiness warranting the interaction of a normative character, but can we not conceive of instances of moe in which there is no such thing to be righted? Konata from Lucky Star certainly bears charming flaws to her character, though one has the impression in which the "disruption" of which you speak is quite difficult to pinpoint in her case. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Brent Allison
Posts: 2444 Location: Athens-Clarke County, GA, USA |
|
|||||||||
My proposed authority construct can be absent in the narrative, but present in the sense of audience imagination. The audience can (or may even be invited to by implication) imagine different scenarios of how a cute character's disturbances (I hesitate to use the word "flaws") can manifest themselves in ways that might eventually need intervention. Konata's otakuism may not need righting (or her protection from their ill-effects) within her school and family context right now, but I think the audience can fairly assume that she will grow up, and that these might present problems for her later on. I doubt that many enthusiasts would want her to "grow out of it", but in order for the process of moe to work, she will need some sort of protection eventually, at least as far as my current proposal is concerned. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
SonicRenegade84
 Posts: 630 Location: Atlantis! |
|
|||||||||
Yes, I was talking about the Tomoya/Tomoyo episode. But my point is that I didn't need an episode like that at the end of the first season. Why not have them as OVA's or something instead of making them the last episode? PS: I saw it all on Anime Network. That might be the reason for confusion. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
notrogersmith
 Posts: 196 |
|
|||||||||
|
Here's my attempt to break down what "moe" is supposed to mean, based on what I've heard in the podcast and read on this this thread and elsewhere. I'd say the term has a few different meanings, depending on the context:
Based on this, the shows commonly labeled as "moe," such as AIR, Kanon, and Clannad, are "moe" in sense 3, while Azumanga Daioh really isn't moe in that sense. Sure, some of the characters in that show may elicit a "moe" feeling, but that's not the main point of the show. Mikuru from Haruhi Suzumiya is a "moe character," but Haruhi herself is not, since she's meant to provoke a wide range of reactions, including annoyance at her selfish actions. Osaka from AzuDai may be considered "moe" by many fans, but isn't a "moe character" in the sense of being primarily designed to provoke feelings of moe. Finally, this seems to explain what Ouran High School Host Club was lampooning when it mocked "moe." Here, the "moe" feeling is elicited in the host club's clientele in the episodes where Honey has a toothache and where Kasanoda's spoiler[romantic intentions toward Haruhi get shot down]. Neither of those scenarios has much to do with senses 2 or 3 of "moe," but rather just with the "moe" feeling of sense 1. Hopefully, that clarifies the usage of "moe." |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Cheesecracker
 Posts: 240 |
|
|||||||||
|
OK
My last bite at the (Moe) title apple: Potatmoe Potahtmoe Let's call the whole thing off. If not, can we all agree that Moe tunnel back thru time and declare Persephone Moe? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||
|
I think I'm pretty satisfied with that attempt at a comprehensive definition of moe, notrogersmith. Although there are sure to be peripheral cases that defy interpretation via this categorisation, it will do very well for most cases.
Well put. - abunai |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
TheBigN
 Posts: 62 Location: Somewhere in DC |
|
|||||||||
That's sort of the point. And one of things that people should look at going into a conversation that focused on moe is not to get anything concrete about the term itself, because there isn't one specific definition for it. That in itself leads to people sometimes grasping at whatever at least makes works with their mindset about the term while probably not paying as much attention to other possible considerations of what moe is. As for the ANNCast: Really enjoyed the group discussion, and I felt like wildarmsheero worked with Zac, Mike and Hope well. It was interesting to note the manipulation of feelings angle, but it's not something relegated to one specific term or condition. Any genre (and moe's not one in my opinion) can do the exact same thing, but all that matters whether we as the audience can see it or care enough about that manipulation to be offput by it or not. 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cheesecracker
Posts: 240 |
|
|||||||||
Your definition(s) certainly outlines what I would've considered Moe. However,does the quote suggest a narrowness and perhaps shallowness to the 'Moe-Trigger' if not the Moe reaction? Not only that it could be narrow, but that it should be. While it might be taken as a negative, maybe it just is what it is? Perhaps, eliciting other reactions would dilute the strength of the singular reaction? You don't want that 'dropped on the floor and stepped on' stuff. You want the pure white mind-blowing Moe experience. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
MorwenLaicoriel
 Posts: 1617 Location: Colorado |
|
|||||||||
That would be the reason, yes. The Tomoyo episode IS an OVA, one that was packaged with the DVDs. It's counted as an additional "episode" on places like Netflix and Anime Network to allow streamers the chance to see it, but it doesn't fit into the continuity proper--hence why it's called an "Another World" episode. The episode summary states pretty clearly that it's set in an alternate timeline, too...at least, it did on Netflix, and I'm assuming both places have the same summary. In fact, if I recall correctly neither Tomoyo's episode or the summer-time episode that shows Tomoya and Nagisa as a couple are part of the actual broadcasted series, I think it originally ended with the confession scene, or so I heard. I honestly didn't find it that confusing when I watched it, though, the episode summaries made it pretty clear that they were bonus episodes. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Darth Joker
Posts: 84 |
|
|||||||||
Everything else she said worked fine too. This podcast was a very well-balanced discussion on moe, including critics and fans of it alike. Obviously, the critics of moe are not going to make points that the fans of moe are going to find terribly agreeable. That's life. More importantly, that's the whole point of a discussion of this nature: To explore different perspectives on a topic of interest. A lot of the posters on this thread seem to be saying "Your opinion is fine, but only as long as it agrees with mine". 
It's sad how many people on this thread are totally validating the criticisms of the moe fandom that was made in this podcast. Are we (and I include myself here, because I like moe myself, for the most part) so insecure about what we like, that we can't handle the least bit of constructive criticism or questioning over it? I have to admit that the moe critics in this podcast (including Hope) raise some decent points against it (or against how its sometimes used, at least). Many animes do, in fact, use moe (and some other elements, like fanservice) to mask weaknesses in the broader work, such as a poorly constructed plot, or a glaring lack of character depth or character development. These criticisms are not entirely subjective, either. A plot hole is a plot hole. How much the viewer cares about plot inconsistency is subjective, but not whether or not there is one: Some plot inconsistencies are as clear-cut as saying "2 + 2 does not equal 8". And, honestly, I think Hope has a point about how death is used in some moe animes... and I say that has somebody who liked Kanon 2006 and Clannad (I haven't seen Air, though, so I can't comment on that). There might be a good idea or reason behind many of these deaths (at least some of them definitely do have a good reason behind them), but because they're used quite a bit, they start to lose their effect for a lot of people. It starts to feel like a cheap gimmick to many people (kind of like the overuse of characters dying and coming back from the dead in American comic books). Even if I don't entirely agree with Hope's assessment, I can see where she's coming from.
No, it doesn't hurt her credibility, imo. She's taking a perfectly valid approach to the topic at hand. It's good to get an "outside the fandom" take on something. If for no other reason to know how people not already deep in the fandom might think of something on a "first impressions" basis. To the extent that you want to introduce non-fans into the anime fandom (or try to demonstrate what you like about moe to anime fans not already into it), isn't it good to know that kind of thing? Isn't it good to know, beforehand, what sort of objections you're likely to run into, and hence to perhaps come up with ways to answer them effectively? Open and honest communication, including sincere critique, is almost always good, in my opinion. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Zump
Posts: 131 |
|
|||||||||
|
I'm not too sure about Mike's take on Elfin Lied as a vicious parody of the moe genre. That show seems to take itself way too seriously, and its attempts at drama come across as forced and outright cringeworthy (example: spoiler["Why are you crying? You're a guy. Guys aren't... supposed... to cry... *bursts into tears*]).
As for the moe genre itself, I care very little for it. I agree with the belief that it has damaged the creative output in Japan. I hope it is merely a passing fad for this previous decade, just as super robots were all the rage back in the 70s. Besides, I can't bear to watch programs with character designs that even Masami Obari would have been embarrassed to draw. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
xBTAx
Posts: 189 |
|
|||||||||
Yeah, that explains things. As MorwenLaicoriel said, it was indeed an OVA, but it's one with the length of a normal episode and was put after the last episode on the DVD release. I can see how someone watching it on Netflix/the Anime Network could end up being very confused... 
(And, slightly off-topic, now that I check Netflix... they don't seem to have After Story streaming (or have the DVDs, for that matter). And the first season is split into the half-season releases and is subbed, so it's not like it's because the dubbed full-season set isn't out yet, so... Huh.) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
notrogersmith
Posts: 196 |
|
|||||||||
Not necessarily. One could have a character who is designed to provoke a moe reaction, but is nonetheless well-written. The character could be recognizable as a moe character on account of being drawn in the cute style that other such characters have, but have the moe reaction meant to be spawned less by the cuteness itself and more by the author's choice of believable character traits interacting with the world that the author built. How much that happens in practice? I'll let people more experienced with moe shows answer that. ETA:
That's not quite what I mean. I don't doubt that many moe characters are designed to provoke responses besides just moe. It's just that, as far as I can tell, for a moe character, the moe is primary. By contrast, Haruhi Suzumiya does not act like a character primarily meant to make viewers think "AWWWW!!" There are far too many times that she's portrayed as selfish and obnoxious for that to be the case. Last edited by notrogersmith on Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cheesecracker
Posts: 240 |
|
|||||||||
Fair enough. Perhaps this is the distinction that is so controversial. How often is that actually accomplished(Does it really matter? Ask any know-it-all snob and they will tell you that most people are ignorant swine who wouldn't know quality if it was NIB)
That wasn't really directed at you. I was just speculating on why tropes emerge to such extremes. From a business standpoint, you want to get under peoples defenses and go deep. Bait the hook with their greatest weakness. I know from a fan's standpoint that sounds incredibly cynical, but it is still a business. Last edited by Cheesecracker on Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group