Forum - View topic

View on Moe.

Any other sense of the word is far too subjective (how are we supposed to know when these "feelings of protectiveness" are evoked?).

This is why I disagree whenever someone calls Horo moe. Maybe she is pandering to a male otaku audience--but in my book her character has much broader appeal because she is not moe. Streaks of vulnerability do not make a character moe; nor does idealization make a character moe, as Horo is. I mean, using that definition almost every semi-relatable female character becomes moe

My favorite is When They Cry (That is Moe in some sense right?).

Then you give a very definatly moe character, she's a tsundere with animal ears for hecks sake, as a counter exapmle.

Rika did win Saimoe, so it's characters are definately moe.

Lacking personal resolve is a trait of the response-dependent characteristics found with moe characters as in such titles, they always need to be pushed by other characters to push along development and force a reaction from the viewers. It enforces the "helpless" part of their archetypes to create the protective feelings that fans have for said characters.

Any other sense of the word is far too subjective

how are we supposed to know when these "feelings of protectiveness" are evoked?

Above, you almost seem to make moe synonymous with female vulnerability--which is just ridiculous.

rainbowcourage wrote:

how are we supposed to know when these "feelings of protectiveness" are evoked?

Much like Reaper gI, I might address this quite simply: one knows when said feelings are evoked when one entertains such feelings whilst viewing, or otherwise contemplating, the title in question. Such simplicity is the advantage of response-dependence concepts in general. One must admit this causes difficulties for those who entertain no such sentiments when viewing. In such cases, an object-oriented definition might, I admit, be of greater utility to them. (You yourself appear to do this, but you wisely specify a degree of subjectivity for your conditions by preceding them with the term, "to me".)

That makes the issue entirely subjective, giving anyone free license to say, "Well, Marlene may have started out as an ice-cold Darwinian socialist elite soldier, but since, you know, she grew a heart over the series, and I want to protect her, I guess she's moe."

To me, the idea of moe being entirely subjective is bullshit, a product of the internet.

If there is a set of objective properties upon which the property of moeness entirely supervenes, the 'room for interpretation' regarding what the elements of this set might be leads me towards scepticism regarding the success of identifying moe in this manner.

[examples]

The first is to vindicate each person's entitlement to their personal definition, which would entail that 'moe' can mean anything to anyone, for A and C would need to be simultaneously valid, as would any other set of properties sharing no elements with A.

If moe is to be defined by response-independent properties, what is the set of properties that each 'valid' definition of moeness must include as a proper subset? Or alternatively, what are the essential properties of moe? This is the daunting task that would need to be achieved for me to warm to the notion that response-independent properties are suitable for categorising moe.

Such a task can be avoided by instead declaring moeness to be (or to supervene upon) a set of responses, or more specifically, a set of mental states induced by a title. If a person responds to a title in a particular manner, then the title is moe to that person. 'Moe' becomes not a description of a device in anime, but a description of the emotional habits of certain persons.

For balance however, I am not in a position to deny that there could be a sufficient set of objective properties. The thrifty ontology involved in reducing moeness to a response —a response to be identified through tokens of mental occurrences— simply alleviates one of having to boldly assert that one can identify all the elements of said set of objective properties, as doing this becomes surplus to requirements.

Moe is a Japanese term used in connection with manga or anime to describe something precious, usually (but not always) the ideal of youthful and innocent femininity. Written with the kanji for "to bud or sprout" (萌), the concept covers a range of ideal behaviour for youthful female characters in manga or anime. To be moe, a character can be eager or perky, not overly independent, and call forth a desire in the viewer to protect them and nurture them. The term is also used to describe any preciously cute item; there is an animal mascot character store in Tokyo called Moe.

I'm pertaining to "Moe" as a supporting word for the character (moe characters), and not the one that's associated with emotion.

So in other words, I'm saying that some of these moe characters act real whether childish, maturely, retarded, weakly, etc. etc.

Is that for me?

Erm... I'm not sure but, using a Japanese term "moe", over a *live*-action character wouldn't sound right. "Love", "like", "adoration", "admiration", etc. would be what I'll call a more correct term for that.

Above, you almost seem to make moe synonymous with female vulnerability--which is just ridiculous.

Yes, the Higurashi girls are moe in terms of character design. But personality wise, they break the archetypal mold of characters made to get the "protective feelings" moe fans get of such designs by deceptively portraying a seemingly innocent nature from the girls until the crap hits the fan.

Well, okay, but I mean some specific examples.

Quote:

Is that for me?

No, it was directed at some others who seemed to be under that misconception.

Quote:

Erm... I'm not sure but, using a Japanese term "moe", over a *live*-action character wouldn't sound right. "Love", "like", "adoration", "admiration", etc. would be what I'll call a more correct term for that.

Do you define moe as anyone of those terms, though? Basically, are they interchangable?

ok maybe she is alittle to extreme to be real

spoiler[Okazaki Ushio] from CLANNAD AS. It's really rare to see a kid being portrayed like a "real kid" in some shows that it hurts seeing their struggles.

That spoiler[locked-up twin sister] from Jigoku Shoujo. Her feelings for her sister and action is a very real thing to me. Yet, despite knowing her way of thinking, I just couldn't come to hate her. It's actually a mixture of Pity & Love if you know what I mean.

To me, Moe is a flexible word therefore, the words I mentioned are just some term that could also substitute Moe. That's how I use Moe.

Before I read the article linked to by 4nBlue, I was more or less an adherent of ANN's definition. The article was responsible for weaning me away from defining moe as a property borne by an anime or anime character, for it outlined a set of responses that I deem appropriate to be the members of my set M, and therefore allowed me to make my recent proposals.

Doesn't that article allude to character types that are moe, though? Basically, the way they're used? Treating "moe" strictly as an intangible reminds me of the worst kind of nonsense from academia, so I feel it's appropriate to acknowledge its real world application -- namely, the types of people that use "moe," and what kind of things those people use it for.

The article also states that things like artstyle, plot etc. are all irrelevant to it.

The emphasis on youth in moe is another aspect that demands attention. For example, a common moe character type is the little sister (imouto).

rainbowcourage wrote:

Above, you almost seem to make moe synonymous with female vulnerability--which is just ridiculous.

Well, it is. In theory. But I believe, like I have done, one must make a distinction between "ought" and "is." For proponents of it, moe ought to be this universal feeling of protection and support for characters -- regardless of gender, species, et cetera -- that has none of the negatives (sexism, unnuanced and stereotypical characterizations, masturbation fodder in various forms, et cetera). But, like any ideology, what is the reality of the concept played out becomes problematic, so you get these obnoxiously attempts at cute, vulnerable, young idealizations of girls (not bearing any resemblance to reality other than as an abstract, at best) that frequently are supplemented by both sexual representations (be it in the works themselves or in the market) and excessively manipulative, mawkish soap operas that only want to make their audiences cry.