By TheBigN
What type of cancer would it be? Something slow-growing, yet considered incurable like a chronic lymphocytic leukemia? Something that could have been avoided if people didn’t use certain things too much, like smoking with lung cancers? Something that’s silent until it’s too late, like some forms of pancreatic cancer? Course, I have problems with hearing this metaphor in the first place, as it paints moe as something that’s negative, bothersome, and ultimately ruinous for anime, and I wonder why? Whether you agree with that or not (and I feel like I’m simplifying things too much here, in my opinion), I feel like moe is used as a scapegoat too much, where people use it as the answer du jour for whatever ails anime, and I never feel comfortable about that.
Is the answer really cancer?
I feel more uncomfortable about it since moe is a complicated concept with different definitions for different people. For myself, I mostly see it as something that one feels: something that one becomes or gets whenever they see something that appeals to them in that way, like a character trait, or a random thing. From that I believe that one can feel moe for anything (glasses moe, train moe, show moe, etc.), and that whatever instills that feeling presents a sense of innocence, cuteness, pleasure or whatever the hell you want to call it. And that makes you want to do something to it, be it wanting to observe them, protect them, care for them, care for them in your pants, whatever. But who says that’s really the right way to look at it?
And it’s why I get confused when I hear that a show is moe, or when people refer to characters such as “moeblobs”. Terms like that make me get the opinion that the people who use them call things moe to mean that these things contain characteristics solely for the purpose of appealing to that “moe” sense. And is that sense a certain type of cute properties or properties trying to be cute (if it’s sorta like that, then why the hell not call it just that to be more specific)? Something like that I was talking about before? Something more implicitly sexual? Something just for otaku? A certain type of aesthetic for others? Something that burns with a fiery passion of manliness? Something that you know when you see it? Something devoid of any productive value? Something else?
Regardless, most of the time, to me the usage sounds derogatory, as in there’s no other worth to these shows/characters/things other than pandering to a certain subset of people that aren’t the people saying these terms (who are also the ones making things bad for everyone else, from what I infer as well). I worry/think too much about what’s meant by those terms, since it gets to the point where I refrain from saying that a character/shows is “cute” or “adorable”, even when that’s the case to me. Those words to me sound like buzzwords that can be easily connected to moe, and the more “negative” aspects that seen to come with the term (male “dominance”, titillation, pandering, easy money make, not artistic/special) and so on. And I wonder in turn that that means about me, who thinks these things about some anime I watch and some people that I like in these anime. Even the people who openly like moe seem to keep that worry in mind.
It seems that this is why K-On! sucked for some. Somehow. I just shrug.
I also wonder about how moe is leading to a decline of anime, and possibly a death. I think I get the argument that as anime focuses more on “moe” or whatever the term’s supposed to mean in more works, the audience becomes more and more focused to the lowest common denominator (in size of audience and in moral standing, hurr hurr hurr). And because apparently most recent shows produced only cater to these individuals, how can the industry sustain itself as that niche begins to get older, and there doesn’t seem to be a will to make more works that cover a larger audience (again, clarify if I’m totally off here), or something along those lines? One could claim that the seeds are sewn for that, but there’s no answer to that question for the moment, especially since we haven’t reached that “dire” situation yet. But to that, why is moe considered to be so limited in that respect (the amount of people willing to watch shows containing more apparently obvious examples of it)? Don’t different types of moe appeal to different people, and so on and so forth?
For something that seems complex, how come a lot of people (including myself) try to simplify moe so much, and then use that simplification as a scapegoat, or as something to look down at? I’m not saying that it doesn’t need criticism, but doing it that way seems like an easy way out. And yay victimization, but I also sometimes sort of see it as an “Us vs Them” argument, since sometimes it comes out to me as it the main reason people pick a bone with moe is that it’s not the anime they want to see, and are just hating on it because it’s there. I can get that some people don’t like it, but to phrase things as if it’s a scourge on anime that needs to be eliminated to me sounds like overkill. It’s why I keep asking what a person means whenever they say that a show/character is moe. Since there isn’t one set answer for what moe is, how come many seem to treat it like such?
I mean, there are different types of cancers out there with different prognoses, treatments and such, but it’s all considered to be bad. When looking at moe in that aspect, it isn’t that problematic, is it? Do I have it completely wrong?
After all, Madarame is pretty moe.
P.S. Here are four of my favorite takes on moe (the first is not safe for work, and on the third hopefully SDS can update his post or repost it on Ogiue Maniax for more to see like these), but again, they aren’t the be-all and end-all, and I don’t necessarily agree with all that’s said there. But it shows a little bit of how moe is more complicated than it may seem, or more complicated than what others might want to think about it.
TheBigN
nomadotto
dm00
Moe is a trait. Character designs != moe. A character can look “cute” due to his or her design, but they may not be considered moe at all. But it’s very common for design to play a role in brining out or making a character moe. Do not be confused here; moe is a character trait that is drawn out though action, thoughts, certain characteristics, and so on. Any feeling of wanting to hug, or protect is generally considered moe. Innocence that shouldn’t be damaged/touched is a major moe attribute too.
There are also archetypes that are part of the moe phenomenon: yandere, tsundere, kuudere, shrine maiden, meganekko, etc. are all considered moe.
Rather than simplification, it’s more like the act of oversimplifying details. And to do so is one of the worst offensive and a tall sign of a weak argument when it’s used. Pretty much, it’s just an easy way out for most people who dislike it or have an aversion for such thing. It could also be ignorance at their end as well.
A “moeblob is a subset from moe characters. It isn’t a derogatory term by default; there are different usage and applications for the term, not to mention different connotations depending on the context in which it’s used. Simply put, a moeblob is a character that’s so moe, that any other noticeable character traits are overshadowed by his or her moe-ness. But that’s not always the case. Really, it be applied to nearly any character who acts like a moe-blob, or to a character that’s “so MOE, I’m going to die.”
Moe isn’t cancer; it’s nirvana. It’s not something that needs explaining nor is a guide required in learning or accepting it. Moe is meant to be understood. When one sees it, one should be able to recognize it in its complete form. Nirvana exist—bask in its radiance, and if one do, enlightenment becomes possible.
“Any feeling of wanting to hug, or protect is generally considered moe. Innocence that shouldn’t be damaged/touched is a major moe attribute too.”
These are things that people feel, which is where my definition of moe resides. The traits might cause the feeling of moe, the moe comes from the reaction to those traits/things, which is what ghostlightning said.
LOL. Moe isn’t a trait, it is a reaction to a set of traits.
The haet for shows that are presumed to have nothing going for them except moe is really directed at fans who are perceived to be overrating and overvaluing such shows.
The haet isn’t really directed at ‘moderates,’ who just enjoy what they see without making bold statements about a show’s greatness or whatever. However, casual fans who just happen to enjoy moe too in certain shows are treated as if they’re the malignant tumor as well.
The root of all this is the antipathy against the kind of fanboying that overvalues and overrates shows at the expense of other shows (i.e. people who would say Keion or Haruhi or Lucky Star are the greatest shows evar while their total experience of anime is quite limited to make such pronouncements: saw too few shows outside their pet genres, saw little to no Ghibli movies, little to no robot anime, little to none of well-regarded shows through the three plus decades of anime to qualify their statements).
And of course, there is no surplus of maturity among us anime fans in general.
“The haet for shows that are presumed to have nothing going for them except moe is really directed at fans who are perceived to be overrating and overvaluing such shows.”
THIS.
Also, you can’t deny that Potemayo is a blob of moe.
I personally see blaming moe as a knee-jerk reaction to deeper problems within a show and that it’s just easier to claim that because that show is too moe, that it’s reason enough to dislike it.
But of course, those people can’t go deeper to look at things like plot, character development, and other elements that require taking a critical look at the show itself, and so, moe becomes the scapegoat out of convenience more than anything else.
I don’t have a problem with moe in principle, I think there are some great shows that use its moe well, and I believe others here would agree.
Blaming moe as some pandemic disease crippling anime usually signals to me:
1) a general dislike of the new and popular
OR
2) a lack of deeper analysis or critical vocabulary to properly appraise a show (like demonstrating a lack of substance beneath the aesthetics, or inappropriate use of moe resulting in clashing tones), so memetic parroting ensues.
Shallow people, shallow thinking (hey, if they do think!), shallow memes. Call it natural selection, if you will–those who would propagate hilarious catchphrases and memes like these are just the chaff separating themselves from the wheat. It’s that simple!
1) One of the “problems” with moe is that since, by definition, it causes an overflowing of emotions, it automatically causes intense fanboying.
2) I honestly believe that moe is not at all a universal emotion. It’s not like how different people find different things to be funny. I really do think that only some people can feel moe.
3) Then, going off of point #2, these shows are shows that can by their very nature only appeal to a small group.
4) Since making anime is, after all, a business, if moe is what’s selling, moe is what’s going to get made, to the chagrin of the non-fanboys.
5) And of course, there’s that whole fact that’s been mentioned about looking down upon the sort of tropes or characters that get used because they are “moe”.
But then again, what do I know? I just reflexively hate the newest things due to my deep personal insecurities and desperate grasps to not be seen as the mental 12 year old that I actually am.
I don’t like moe. I can usually take it when it’s just one element of a series, but never when it’s the beating heart. It doesn’t disgust me or anything like that, it just makes me feel a bit… icky. At this point I should say I’m thinking about series like K-ON and Kannagi; it’s the way the ‘camera’ lingers on the characters, the way it captures every tiny movement, it feels too calculated and obsessive, which is mirrored by the viewers, who watch an episode and then run off to capture every frame for their blogs or whatever. I prefer my escapism to be a bit more veiled, you know? My favourite anime have light and dark, but moe is intesely light and way too idealised, so much so it just takes me out of a story.
A few years ago I probably would have said something like ‘moe is destroying the industry’, but I don’t think that’s nesessarily true. The vast, vast majority of anime is generic mediocrity, and while moe is definitely the genre of choice right now, the buisness will shift once fandom tires of buying it. It’s like how lots and lots of mecha anime used to be produced, but now, not so much.
>> However, casual fans who just happen to enjoy moe too in certain shows are treated as if they’re the malignant tumor as well.
It happens to me almost all the time. I got attacked for watching, enjoying and *GASP* liking Aria and stating that it is one of my favorites of the 2000s decade. Let’s conveniently forget that I grew up watching Fist of the North Star and that shows like Gungrave, Baccano and Monster are among my favorites!
That’s interesting, since I guess you could say that ARIA is a show that has contains things that can make one feel moe, but to hear it being attacked in general is strange, and for it being attacked because others consider it a “moe show” (I don’t) sounds all kinds of wrong to me.
ghostlightning: I know it’s more than that in regards to hating on moe, but hating on it for mainly this reason is A)misguided and B)pretty damn stupid in my opinion. But you already know that, I guess.
omisyth: Potemayo is a blob, sure. But what’s moe about her in your opinion? :3
zzeroparticle: I do see people take a critical look at shows and say “there’s too much moe” and things like that, but it’s more of the “why is there too much moe/what’s the problem with moe” that I want to hear then the “there’s moe, therefore it sucks tack” that I read on a lot of blogs. I mean, if moe’s not for you, then it’s not, but don’t say that moe can’t be for anyone else either, and don’t expect me to take you seriously if you just kneejerk it like you said.
kadian1364: That’s what it seems like to me. And the assumption that people get what one’s talking about when they say that they hate moe without explanation.
jp: lol
1.) Is this extreme fanboying a bad thing though? Misguided, perhaps? Just annoying?
2.) I don’t know, since going by your definition, can’t other things cause an overflowing of emotions? Or do you mean an overflowing of a certain type of emotions? And if so, what are these certain types of emotions in your opinion?
5.) Yeah, hence my reluctance to say that “so-and-so character is cute/adorable/etc.”, where even though I don’t say think that a character’s moe, just saying those words I feel make others think that I’m calling them moe, when I’m not. But again, why should worry about that?
And I feel like you’re more mature than I am, so…
bateszi: That’s the first time I’ve heard of moe as being too positive, which is a nice change from the norm. Though could you clarify what moe means to you a little bit more? That is, does it seem fetishistic to you or too fantastica? To you is it a trait, something you feel, something else?
I don’t want to say ‘fetishistic’ since that implies there’s always a sexual context to moe, which I don’t agree with. I think it’s just a unique brand of escapism, in which the viewer is literally living through the eyes of the (typically vanilla) main character. The intensity of the focus on the ‘moe’ characters feels almost like voyeurism (a more sanitized type of voyeurism), which is often what throws me off.
And generally, I see moe as a genre of anime. For example, I wouldn’t describe Kannagi as a romance series, just as I wouldn’t say K-ON! is a music anime, both of them are (to me at least) moe anime. The same can be said of Clannad, Kanon and the rest.
But guys! Don’t you know? Moe is a fetish for underaged girls and child abuse! C’mon guys get your facts straight jeez.
http://2chan.us/wordpress/2009/07/04/moe-defined-as-related-to-child-sex-abuse/
No, no, no, you guys have it all wrong! We “moe-haeters” don’t hate it because we have deep personal insecurities or because we hate new things or because we’re crotchety old people who can’t adapt to understand the important meaning behind the latest fashions.
At least in my case, I hate moe because it’s thinly-veiled PEDOPHILIA (despite what Nocturnesb so sarcastically implies). I hate it because I hate people who claim to want to “protect” and “cuddle” little cartoon girls, when really they just want to have sex with them.
That’s not to say that all moe fans are into that, or that I hate all fans of moe. I’m just creeped out by moe itself because, whether you’re a lolicon trying to hide your shame or not, THAT’S WHAT MOE IS FOR. It exists as a male fantasy, and most of us just can’t get over the specter of pedophilia that looms over the entire concept.
So I see that you apparently focus on moe on more sexual terms, or in just sexual terms. I don’t look at it that way myself, as that’s one of the simplifications that are a little troublesome to me. Sure, in the overflowing of feelings of innoncence/wanting to protect/etc. that moe seems to bring out in people, some people might look at it in more of a sexual context (i.e. the male gaze and all that). And you can easily see how the fascination that comes with moe can also be applied to something like lolicon. But from my experiences though (though I also can be wrong, to keep that in context), it’s one of the exceptions to the rule (and you can’t really call moe a rule yet if everyone has different meanings for it
), and because moe is a complex concept, to paint it all as just for sex is as absurd to me as saying that moe is the cancer that destroys anime, or that moe is all completely pure and good.
But why do you think that people aren’t being honest when they claim that it’s a feeling of wanting to be fatherly, to protect, and things like that? Do you have experience to justify the believe that all moe is inherently sexual?
Mind you, I don’t think everybody is being dishonest (as I pointed out in my previous post). For all I know, you might legitimately be interested in moe only because you like the “fatherly instinct” or whatever. But why would somebody else be dishonest about their latent pedophilia? Well, because it’s pedophilia, and few people are going to openly admit that they are sexually attracted to underage girls. Moe is a seemingly-innocent cover that they can hide behind.
One can argue that it has become its own concept now, separate from the sexual undertones, but the truth is that moe still appeals most to those who find moe characters sexually attractive.
But let’s work with your argument for a bit here. Let’s say that moe is NOT inherently sexual. If so, then it at least promotes a view of women that is inherently biased. It creates a vision of a sort of “ideal woman” who acts as the man’s (non-sexual, if you insist) pet, and who relies on his “protection” so that she may remain his innocent and pure companion. That is absolutely a male fantasy, and it promotes a view of women that diverges greatly from reality.
No offense, but I’m in delivering deep sighs because of your post right now.
I don’t think you even understand what moe is if you think moe in general = sexual, and thinking (for you, anyway) that it’s “thinly-veiled PEDOPHILIA.” Seemingly, you are stuck on the notion that moe, or all moe characters are prepubescent, which is far from accurate. Even if it does concern a character who is prepubescent, can you say for certain that the underlying cause that leads to sexual desire is because of moe? I don’t believe so. There are too many factors and reasons that exist within each individual to even say for certain. You only infer with your own perception of what you think moe is or is designed for.
And to me, your perception for hating moe flawed.
You are clearly confusing “normal male desire”, that is, “typical and normal sexual thought/attraction”, to moe. When it comes to moe, there should not be anything sexual about it at all. When it does come to that, though, then it no longer is because of moe, but either a natural desire, especially inside males, or because of fetishes, love for the character, and numerous other reasons.
Again, your mindset (of moe) is warping your way of thinking. Moe is a huge presence within the otaku culture that is continually growing. Traits, archetypes and designs like tsundere, yandere… bishoujo in general, and so many other are are just small facets within the moe fandom. With that, it should be transparent to you that moe is not restricted by anything. And I’d argue that it might be possible for inanimate objects to be moe…but let’s not get into that now.
The otaku culture is built around marketing and appealing to males since they are the dominating party. Not to say that the female party is insignificant or are not thought of, but it’s undeniable that the majority of the marketing is geared towards and for males. This includes visual novels, games, manga, anime, etc. And one way of appealing to males is through moe. And since the concept of moe encompasses many subsets within itself (that is, traits, archetypes designs, character designs, and so forth)… to say that moe exist because you think it for wanting to have sex with “little cartoon girls” is really illogical because moe is not about that, much less even form the culture behind moe. To me, you are just trying to associate moe with pedophilia for your own convenience as an excuse and just reason to hate it.
I strongly recommending (to you) reading The Moe Image by Shingo over at Heisei Democracy. It could be beneficial to you. Even if his take is a bit restricting, I also recommending reading Ken Akamatsu’s take on moe as well. Ken’s take on moe of preserving the “present situation” and not wanting any changes afterwards is worth thinking over.
The concept of “Moe” is also something which I find hard to understand. While there are many kinds of fetishes, a lot of “Moe” seems to center on innocence.
Kagami (winner of last year’s popularity contest called SaiMoe) being an anomaly complicates matters. Her personality is mature, yet tsundere so would the way she was drawn be a huge factor?
Hinagiku is probably the biggest anomaly – drawn like an actual 15 year old, smart, fairly mature, strong, but a hapless tsundere.
Tsukasa on the other hand was more “stereotypical”.
It cannot be denied that “Moe” seems to favour the younger characters as we have Rin (never watched Higurashi), Nagi (Hayate), Shana, Nanoha/Fate, CCS Sakura who all have a huge following.
“Moe” magazines often have 10-year olds with blushing faces on the cover and well, my sister who’s more or less integrated into the “mainstream” gave a “wtf” look as she saw the “Moe” title of the magazine.
The pedophilia bit probably applies to some aspects, since some portions of the Japanese Otaku (and to a lesser extent I hope, gaijin) do have a thing for naked young kids.
To add another complication, in Japan it’s perfectly normal for girls up to primary school (pre-puberty) to take a bath together with her dad. I was a little surprised in Hong Kong when a Japanese dad took his nude daughter into the male jacuzzi area in a private club.
Going back to Otakus, we can see from the amount of fanservice that they do like nudity, even child nudity as seen in Cardcaptor Sakura and Nanoha. The best (and worst) example of all this is Kodomo no Jikan which is loaded with “fanservice”, and the merchandise beyond disgusting. Yet another complication – KnJ kids are not considered “moe” presumably because they’re not innocent.
So what have I done here? In order to clear some things up, I actually muddied the waters even further, which is good in way because it means I am nothing like the Japanese Otaku!
I also wonder about how moe is leading to a decline of anime, and possibly a death. I think I get the argument that as anime focuses more on “moe” or whatever the term’s supposed to mean in more works, the audience becomes more and more focused to the lowest common
I just don’t want to watch ugly characters. Is that too much to ask for?
“Moe” ~= “sexual depiction of young girls”
There are two caveats:
1. The young girls are cartoon figures.
2. Most moe is not overtly sexual. But there is that undertone to it. People who say otherwise are lying or deluded.
In other words, “moe” bumps against our basic civilized instincts. It doesn’t infringe completely against these prejudices because of the caveats above but moe does make many people uncomfortable. Straight up “ordinary” pornography is in some ways more acceptable because at least they depict adults. If we were a society that condoned childhood sexuality then moe would be fine. But thankfully we’re not.
I do understand that there definitely are unsavory aspects linked to moe and to disregard that is silly, but at the same time, it’s important to know that moe can be utilized without sexual aspects linked to it as with them. What I tend to notice is that because of our “basic civilized instincts”, moe often gets bumped to the latter more than I think it should. It’s a personal preference, sure, but painting it all as one thing when it’s not and a lot more complex than that bugs me. Some things can’t be simplified that easily. The undercurrent will always be there by moe’s associations, but it’s not always there, nor is it never there. It’s never that easy.
“appeals most to” is a strong phrase to me. Again, I’m reading from this that in your opinion the majority of people who are interested in things that bring out moe are pedophiles, and I don’t know why you think that (correct me if I’m wrong here). Again, I get what you’re trying to say, but I still don’t really know where you’re coming from with the idea that the main points of moe mainly = pedophile pandering. So can you further explain to me why you think that? What qualities do you think that “moe characters” have that apparently appeal more to deviant interests? Or asking from another angle, what characteristics in the “ideal woman” that moe seems to promote leads you feel that it’s main point is a cover for something more insidious?
This is part of the whole “you know it when you see it” definition of moe that I see from people that, when based on how people use it, I don’t think I really do know it when I see it. So I want to know where you’re coming from a little bit more.
At least in my case, I hate moe because it’s thinly-veiled PEDOPHILIA (despite what Nocturnesb so sarcastically implies). I hate it because I hate people who claim to want to “protect” and “cuddle” little cartoon girls, when really they just want to have sex with them.
Look at this typical moe picture of Yui and Azu-nyan. http://www.wolfhurricane.com/2009/07/09/why-do-we-like-anime/
Does sex enter your mind at all? If so, you may be projecting.
Moe is like someone wanting to hug a puppy or a kitten. Wanting to cuddle a puppy does not mean that person is sexually attracted to animals.