What is "moe"?

[choujin1]

Can someone please explain this?

[Orihimes_Boyfriend]

Looks like the definition has been removed.

[Fencedude]

Looks like the definition has been removed.

The autolinking cuts off the last parentheses, you need to add it back in.

Also, I never liked Wikipedia's definition anyway.

[something]

Can someone please explain this?
I recommend this thread (http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showthread.php?t=83534), which has some pretty good discussion on it. (Here's my main post (http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showpost.php?p=1357688&postcount=8) in the thread.) Not only because it somehow avoided the "anti-moe" trolling that's so common in any thread the word comes up in, but because it helps explain the difference between "moe" and "cute", which seems to be by far the single most confusing thing for people who don't know what moe is yet.

Put simply: moe is a feeling that the viewer feels towards a character. This feeling is usually one of sympathy, a desire to protect; and by extension, a strong wish to see that character succeed and overcome the obstacles and adversity facing them, and find happiness (and the like).

It is an individual, situational reaction that varies significantly from person to person.

[Damius]

Oh that is much better.

[GrateSaiyaman]

Can someone please explain this?
I recommend this thread (http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showthread.php?t=83534), which has some pretty good discussion on it. (Here's my main post (http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showpost.php?p=1357688&postcount=8) in the thread.) Not only because it somehow avoided the "anti-moe" trolling that's so common in any thread the word comes up in, but because it helps explain the difference between "moe" and "cute", which seems to be by far the single most confusing thing for people who don't know what moe is yet.

Put simply: moe is a feeling that the viewer feels towards a character. This feeling is usually one of sympathy, a desire to protect; and by extension, a strong wish to see that character succeed and overcome the obstacles and adversity facing them, and find happiness (and the like).

It is an individual, situational reaction that varies significantly from person to person.

That's about as direct and to the point you can get. Wouldn't change a thing . . .

I think you could infer that the feeling might be along the lines of infatuation . . . but that just goes back to your point about "moe" being a personal reaction.
I guess I'm just rambling again.

[something]

I think you could infer that the feeling might be along the lines of infatuation . . . but that just goes back to your point about "moe" being a personal reaction. I guess I'm just rambling again.
No, I think that's a valid point. I do think infatuation is sometimes part of the feeling, in the sense that the feeling can be very strong, and is by its nature rather personal. Or as personal as you can get with a 2d character.

But I think I'd reserve the 'infatuation' part of it for the more intense bouts of moe, or for characters who make you feel moe over and over and over. For me, it would apply to, say, Yuno from Hidamari Sketch, who I absolutely adore in every way shape and form every time I see her. Every one of her silly little triumphs makes me genuinely happy in so many ways. But if I feel moe for a character once or twice in the course of a full series, I'm probably not infatuated with them.

I would not object if someone said I was "infatuated" with Yuno, so long as I didn't have reason to believe they meant it derogatorily. So I think moe definitely can have elements of infatuation, but does not always.

[Draneor]

Can someone please explain this?

This old thread (http://www.mania.com/aodvb/archive/index.php/t-58405.html?q=aodvb/archive/index.php/t-58405.html) might also help. The formatting is broken, but the content and links are fairly decent.

Personally, I don't think you will find a strict definition of what moe is. It's a rather irrational feeling--and yet one that give me great pleasure. You won't find consistency in what someone finds moe or how moe a trait is. It's very much a subjective, quasi-mystic experience. However, I do know what it is not (http://www.mania.com/aodvb/showpost.php?p=1235903&postcount=90). In a way, it's not all that different if I were asked to describe sadness or boredom. I know them when I feel them but could I explain what it is like to feel them to someone who does not? I'm not sure I could.

For me, I would point to Konomi (ToHeart2) and say: that is moe. Or Mikuru in neko-mimi maid outfit (Haruhi). Or Oto-nee sipping tea (D.C. II). Or Tsukasa saying Balsamic Vinegar over and over again (Lucky☆Star). Or Kagami dressed as Hatsune Miku (ibid). Or...

[Citizen Klaus]

Or Tsukasa saying Balsamic Vinegar over and over again (Lucky☆Star).

Better yet: Tsukasa's distinctive sleeping habits.

[Draneor]

Better yet: Tsukasa's distinctive sleeping habits.

I'm at work. I can't overdose right now. ^^

[choujin1]

So it doesn't really have anything to do with "cuteness"? It's more of a sympathetic or empathic reaction to a character?

For instance, in the first disc of Suzuka, I found myself "rooting" for Sakurai to "get the boy" instead of Asahina. Is that moe?

[something]

So it doesn't really have anything to do with "cuteness"? It's more of a sympathetic or empathic reaction to a character?
Correct, it it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with cuteness. It just so happens that a lot of people, myself included, are more likely to feel moe for a character who we also find to be cute. But there is not a strict one to one correlation and you can most definitely have one without the other, as the linked thread indicated pretty well.

For instance, in the first disc of Suzuka, I found myself "rooting" for Sakurai to "get the boy" instead of Asahina. Is that moe?
It could be. I have not seen Suzuka and thus can't say whether or not I'd feel the same way. But even if I didn't, that doesn't mean you can't. So the answer is, maybe?

I guess it would depend on why you feel that way. Do you feel that way because you think Asahina is a bitch or just a poor match for "the boy"? Then it probably isn't moe. Do you feel that way simply because you think Sakurai and the boy are a good match and would make for an interesting or amusing couple? Again, probably not moe. Or, do you feel that way because you have an emotional connection to Sakurai and are sympathetic to the situation she's in, and you have a strong desire to see her safe and happy and successful in love? Then it could well be moe.

Regardless, I think the best advice I can give regarding moe is not to think about it too hard. As Draenor noted, it's something you just naturally feel, and there's a limit to how strictly you can pin it down. That's why I try not to define it overly rigidly, while still sticking to what I see as the core principles.

Above all, moe is just something you're supposed to enjoy.

[choujin1]

I don't plan on devoting too much time to it. I just want to have an understanding of the word/concept so I'm not scratching my head when I see it used.

[musouka]

So it doesn't really have anything to do with "cuteness"? It's more of a sympathetic or empathic reaction to a character?

It varies.

I think the only way to understand what moe is, is to actually feel it for yourself. For me, personally, "moe" is a feeling of warmth directed towards a character that's so strong that I often have to put down what I'm reading or pause what I'm watching and wait for it to pass before I can continue.

It can also have to do with a gap between what's expected from a character and what you actually get--which is why people often find tsundere so moe.

A recent example for me: Listening to one of the special Kyou Kara Maou drama CDs in which Muraken is mercilessly picking on Conrad. Conrad is normally a very stoic, sure-of-himself type character, so whenever I hear him confused or upset it's very, very moe.

[Lego]

I've always seen "moe" as this kind of protective, "Cute" feeling that instantly hits you. For instance while not a Lucky Star fan, the picture with Kona-chan at the concert in wide eyed amazement always gets to me ;)

[something]

I don't plan on devoting too much time to it. I just want to have an understanding of the word/concept so I'm not scratching my head when I see it used.
Oh no, that's cool. Didn't mean to imply you were thinking too much about it, just warning against doing so in general. I'm quite glad you actually took the time to ask and were receptive to the replies, as that's a heck of a lot more than can be said for many people. Too many will simply assume it's something it's not, and ignore any advice to the contrary.

[djanss]

I've always seen "moe" as this kind of protective, "Cute" feeling that instantly hits you. For instance while not a Lucky Star fan, the picture with Kona-chan at the concert in wide eyed amazement always gets to me ;)

As emphasized by Haruhi Suzumiya specifically choosing Mikuru for the group on the basis of her token-moe potential. (Glasses and maid/bunny outfits optional.)

Although the "Slightly uncoordinated but means well" aspect can date all the way back to Mihoshi from TM!, as well...

[Njr Scrawl]

Can someone please explain this?

"Moe" can be a kitten that's lost & drenched in a thunder storm. Or a cute pink butt you want to stroke & lay your cheek on. Or a curl of hair. Or a doggie kept as emergency food. Or a teardrop in the corner of a big anime eye. :catgirl:

[Serial Experiments Nobue]

I've always seen "moe" as this kind of protective, "Cute" feeling that instantly hits you.

Put simply: moe is a feeling that the viewer feels towards a character. This feeling is usually one of sympathy, a desire to protect; and by extension, a strong wish to see that character succeed and overcome the obstacles and adversity facing them, and find happiness (and the like).

It is an individual, situational reaction that varies significantly from person to person.

That about sums it up, really. The important things to remember are that it is subjective, it is a feeling, and it is not a character type or genre.

"Moe" isn't something you can quantify; it just happens. :catgirl:

[Legion]

Moe is an almost ridiculously intangible term (or is it more accurate to say onomatopoeia?) used to describe a protective feeling that a character's behavior or personality elicts from the viewer. The term's intangible nature causes some people to define it incorrectly, such as automatically equating it with cute or loli. Such instances will result in others calling bullshit. Apparently moe has always existed but the feeling has only been recently defined and as a result has yielded series and characters that try to pander to it.

[BonifaceVIII]

Apparently moe has always existed but the feeling has only been recently defined and as a result has yielded series and characters that try to pander to it.
Anime's always had clumsy, childlike, sickly or mistreated characters to elicit some sort of sympathetic reaction from the audience. I wouldn't say that moe is anything new at all, if you consider the old shoujo cliches of the anaemic-bedridden-girl or the school-wide plan to ignore the main character.

[Fudce]

Put simply: moe is a feeling that the viewer feels towards a character. This feeling is usually one of sympathy, a desire to protect; and by extension, a strong wish to see that character succeed and overcome the obstacles and adversity facing them, and find happiness (and the like).

It is an individual, situational reaction that varies significantly from person to person.

That is exactly my feelings too. The feeling of moe is something that is unique to each individual, and while some people may feel moe towards the same character, not everybody will feel moe towards them. Another interesting thing about moe, is the infactuation of protecting will very rarely be sexual in nature. Despite this, it is possible to feel moe towards a character in a hentai, since the feeling is individual.

[Fudce]

I don't plan on devoting too much time to it. I just want to have an understanding of the word/concept so I'm not scratching my head when I see it used.

One thing to understand about the word moe is that it is often misused by the author, and they can often mean something very different.

[Zimmimar]

Another interesting thing about moe, is the infactuation of protecting will very rarely be sexual in nature.
Yea, since I've never actually looked up the meaning of the word, I've always assumed that "moe" describes an unhealty infatuation or obsession with any given anime character. Though, something's definition seems to describe any bond or attachment one feels and is not necessarily unhealthy... but could be... Is that right?

[MattB]

WWWJDIC (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C) sez:

萌え 【もえ】 (n) (1) sprouting; budding; (2) (also written 萌ゑ) (m-sl) crush (anime, manga term); fascination; infatuation

#2 sounds pretty similar to what has been said here. Very different connotations whether you're talking crush, fascination, or infatuation, though. I guess that like anything else, the context is important. It might not be advisable, in certain situations, to use it without qualification. :devil:

[something]

Though, something's definition seems to describe any bond or attachment one feels and is not necessarily unhealthy... but could be... Is that right?
Sure, anything can become unhealthy. Strong feelings of any type for a fictional (or real...) individual can be taken to an extreme. Moe is no different, because what starts as harmless can become not quite so. But so can hatred, love, revulsion, confusion, etc.

Nothing is immune to the corrupting power of humanity =P

[musouka]

not necessarily unhealthy... but could be... Is that right?

Since moe is a form of objectification, then, yes, it can become unhealthy just like anything else.

[Isuzu Inugami]

Since moe is a form of objectification, then, yes, it can become unhealthy just like anything else.

Hmmm... if the "objective" of moe is to inspire a sense of sympathy, support and fellow-feeling, does this really constitute objectification? I'm not sure characters reduced to flat cyphers* whose sole existence is to delight the viewer's eye can evoke moe (though they can certainly be cute); rather I think these characters have to have a certain depth to them (and consequently must engage with the viewer as more than an object) to be able to capture a viewer's sense of moe. Then again, I suspect I may find moe in stranger places than the usual.... :sweat:

*I grant that there are cliches of moe which tend in this direction, but I'd argue the more a character trait becomes a cliche, the less likely it is to successfully induce moe, as opposed to eye-rolling.

[musouka]

Hmmm... if the "objective" of moe is to inspire a sense of sympathy, support and fellow-feeling, does this really constitute objectification?

I don't think moe's purpose is to evoke empathy.

This is getting in a little deep, but bear with me. If moe makes you feel "protective" of a character, that's about your feelings, not how the character feels. Where empathy is trying to "stand beside someone" and see the world from their perspective, moe is about "watching someone from far away".

In my example with Conrad being picked on, I feel warmth over his hurt because it's cute. That same sense of warmth also keeps me from feeling mutually hurt over the things Muraken is saying to him. In short, the "moe" I feel actually keeps me from looking at the situation from Conrad's perspective--one where you feel bad because you're proud of your jokes and even your best friends think you're totally lame whenever you say them.

[something]

Where empathy is trying to "stand beside someone" and see the world from their perspective, moe is about "watching someone from far away".
That leads me to ask, putting all specific talk of "moe" aside, is it possible to feel true "empathy" for a fictional character then, using your definition? There is inherent distance in that the viewer is wholly unable to influence the events playing out on screen. No word you say will ever reach the character's ears, no physical reassurance can ever touch them. It's simply inherent in the whole idea of watching/reading/hearing a story (anime or otherwise) unfold and being unable to actually be a part of it.

Actually, it's somewhat like reading the news, really, except I may actually "get to know" a fictional character a lot better than an individual in Kansas (or Kyrgyzstan) who I will never meet, touch or speak to. In some ways, it can almost be more real than the "real", but... I'll get way off track if I get off on that tangent.

What I'm getting at is that I think what you describe is valid, but it's not the whole picture. Hardship befalling a character may evoke the moe feelings, but if I'm feeling truly moe for a character I can't stop there. Utterly inextricable from that initial feeling is the desire to see the character rise above the hardship.

Keeping with the Hidamari Sketch example (description of Hidamari Sketch x 365 ep 1, if anyone doesn't want to "spoil" themselves... if you can even call it that):
Yuno's anxiety on her first day of high school and upon moving into the Hidamari apartments made me moe like it was going out of style, but if the show just ended there with her being anxious and worried and lonely, man, that would have sucked. But instead there's a moment a few minutes later where everything comes together, she makes her first friend, and the vision of the X's (sort of the character's symbol) flying around and bursting through the dingy, dirty gymnasium inside her worried mind to reveal the light of a new world and new possibilities was... god just typing it I can literally feel goosebumps on my arms and blood rushing to my head as my body temperature rises. It was fucking triumphant. It was in that moment that my moe feelings for Yuno were truly, fully validated and fulfilled and rendered meaningful. (See also: segments in just about every episode of Gakuen Utopia Manabi Straight, or just about everything involving Nagisa in Clannad. Or for a show you're currently watching: CC's "current situation" in Geass - yeah, it's moe. But oh god I totally don't want it to end like that!)

Now, okay. It isn't always nearly that dramatic, obviously. It can be as subtle as a character's smile after a bad test, or whatever.

With your example: The character getting made fun of made you feel moe, but I'm sure you didn't want him to get made fun of forever. Eventually it wouldn't make you feel moe, it'd just be awful to watch, it'd become stagnant, and the character would cease to be interesting. Or, it'd simply become a comedic routine, just "funny" but not moe. Eventually you'd want him to progress as a character in some way, even if it's a really subtle, minor thing.

I think this is where the talk of "objectification" starts to fall apart for me, although that's based on how I'd define the term, since I've never seen the word "objectification" used with positive connotations before. if Yuno were just an object, a mere tool to pleasure me with her misery, that wouldn't really be moe for me. It'd be closer to sadism. :sd: And I definitely wouldn't feel so genuinely elated at her breakthrough.

Or to sum it all up: I want my "sad girls in show" to find a warm blanket and a loving embrace in the end.

----

All the above, of course, is focused on moe evoked from reasonably serious hardship. But there are many subtle or lighthearted moments of less intense moe feelings where talk of empathy and distance and objectification is really a bit too "serious business". I've felt moe for characters in screwball comedies where I'd look a bit silly getting overly worked up about them, and where by the time you can sort out your feelings they've moved on to the next gag anyway.

So, certainly, I have no problem admitting that not all moe is equally deep. It's not all worthy of intense discussion and sometimes has little lasting impact on the character or the story. But honestly, I think that's fine too. A lot of shows aren't worthy of serious thought either. They're just fun.

...And holy shit I did not just spend this much time making a post when I'm at work did I? Shiiiiiit. Back to work...

[Isuzu Inugami]

Hmmm... if the "objective" of moe is to inspire a sense of sympathy, support and fellow-feeling, does this really constitute objectification?

I don't think moe's purpose is to evoke empathy.

This is getting in a little deep, but bear with me. If moe makes you feel "protective" of a character, that's about your feelings, not how the character feels.

Okay, now I see where you're coming from.

Where empathy is trying to "stand beside someone" and see the world from their perspective, moe is about "watching someone from far away".


I guess I kind of get tripped up by this, because I assume I won't feel protective of a character if I can't empathize with them. But then again, if my moe juices get flowing because I see some character being unjustly tormented, and yet that character accepts it thinking they deserve it--I don't necessarily even want to put myself in their perspective....

Ah, moe... just when you think you get it, new depths open up.

[musouka]

That leads me to ask, putting all specific talk of "moe" aside, is it possible to feel true "empathy" for a fictional character then, using your definition?

Well, I wasn't really trying to define empathy, but, yes, it's totally possible for you to emphasize with a fictional character.

Using another example from KKM, let's take Wolfram, Conrad's younger brother. He's my favorite character in the series, but I almost never find him moe. (Though there are often times when I find him and Yuuri interacting utterly moe) That's because I'm too caught up in his struggles as a character. I love seeing him step up to the plate and be a source of strength for Yuuri. I love that even with his bigotry against humans in general, he has enough love in him to adopt a little human girl as his daughter. So I can't feel moe when he's embarassed or hurt or makes mistakes, because I can't help but think about how I'd feel in his situation.

What I'm getting at is that I think what you describe is valid, but it's not the whole picture. Hardship befalling a character may evoke the moe feelings, but if I'm feeling truly moe for a character I can't stop there. Utterly inextricable from that initial feeling is the desire to see the character rise above the hardship.

Yes, but you're rooting from the sidelines, not getting involved with how she might feel about the situation. It's the difference between "how would I feel in this situation" VS "this is a sad situation".

With your example: The character getting made fun of made you feel moe, but I'm sure you didn't want him to get made fun of forever.

Well, yes, like your Hidamari example, the drama CD eventually ends in a sort of super moe explosion when Conrad gets ridiculously happy when Yuuri tells him that his puns totally suck, but he's the best at singing lullabyes--and then forces everyone else to crawl into bed and listen. (This is not even close to the weirdest KKM drama CD out there, btw)

Or to sum it all up: I want my "sad girls in show" to find a warm blanket and a loving embrace in the end.

But, that has exactly no bearing on whether you are objectifying them or not. It's like me watching harem series--often I want my favorite girl to win because that useless asshole of a main is the carrot that will make her happy--but that's a totally different feeling than I get when I finally got to read Yuuri ask Wolfram if he could sleep beside him. It was like I had been rewarded.

I absolutely adored Aya from Ichigo 100%--I own several figurines of her--and I rooted for her the entire way. But it's like rooting for a sports team. With Wolfram, he might very well choose to forgo that "warm blanket and loving embrace" for himself in the end--and if he does, I'll understand why.

Again, I feel moe for characters, so I can't exactly be screaming to ban it or say it's all porn, but I do think people tend to gloss over that unfortunate "objectification" aspect of the idea. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little bit of objectification--especially in an animated medium where "real people" aren't involved at all--but as I said in my original post, yes, it can be taken to unhealthy extremes.

[something]

Using another example from KKM, let's take Wolfram, Conrad's younger brother. He's my favorite character in the series, but I almost never find him moe. ... That's because I'm too caught up in his struggles as a character.
This sounds like, "if - can relate, then - not moe". The mutual exclusivity of the two feelings is a fundamental "given", and that "given" is evidence that they're mutually exclusive. It seems circular. What you described about your feelings for Wolfram doesn't seem to inherently conflict with my understanding of moe, but for you it's evidence that there's an insurmountable dichotomy.

I don't challenge that that's true for you. That's fine by me. But where I have to hit the brakes is with the claim that that's just how it is, period. What sounds to me like a highly personal view is being described as a basic truth. I already know we won't be able to reconcile that difference.

As for the rest, I don't see the objectification, but it's clear by now that we definitely don't use that word with quite the same intentions, and that it's related to the "dichotomy" above that I already indicated I don't agree with.

You're presenting as opposing forces two things in which I see no inherent contradiction. If anything, I see affinity, not conflict.

[Shsway]

This has to be the most interesting thread that I've read on the subject so far. A recent example for me: Listening to one of the special Kyou Kara Maou drama CDs in which Muraken is mercilessly picking on Conrad. Conrad is normally a very stoic, sure-of-himself type character, so whenever I hear him confused or upset it's very, very moe. That sounds pretty fun. :sdsmiley: Not exactly the same, but that makes me think of the way I feel when I hear Kawakami Tomoko, as Utena, reading out the title of the fifth episode, in the preview for it. I would disgrace myself trying to recall how many times I've actually rewound the chapter to hear her say the word "Finale" there. It's so... :shy:

One thing that always conjures up the moe feeling in me is the cliched, dark-haired onee-sama character. I can feel attraction and empathy pretty much simultaneously, and this character usually becomes my favorite in the cast for one reason or another (recently, it seems that MariMite has broken a streak of sorts, where that element is concerned...)

[Shady Grady]

Can someone please explain this?
Moe is pretty much a sensation of being attracted to something, sort of like an infatuation. In Japan I hear moe seems to have a "darker" image than in the West. Most people here tend to associate moe with good and happy feelings, while in Japan the feeling is a little scary (but still overall pleasant).

In most cases, there isn't much room to debate a topic of moe unless the person has felt the sensation, or at least find

[Citizen Klaus]

I do think people tend to gloss over that unfortunate "objectification" aspect of the idea.

That's the whole beauty of feeling moe for illustrations of fictional characters. You can objectify all you want, because nobody gets hurt in the end. In real life, it would be completely unacceptable for me to feel moe for anyone (assuming I even could) in the same way I feel moe for certain anime characters. Here, we're not dealing with real people, just abstract concepts of given personality types.

Personally, I find moe for fictional characters to be liberating. In real life, I can be as upstanding and politically correct as I need to be, because I know my anime, manga, figure, doujinshi, and game collections will be waiting for me when I get home.

[musouka]

This sounds like, "if - can relate, then - not moe". The mutual exclusivity of the two feelings is a fundamental "given", and that "given" is evidence that they're mutually exclusive. It seems circular. What you described about your feelings for Wolfram doesn't seem to inherently conflict with my understanding of moe, but for you it's evidence that there's an insurmountable dichotomy.

No, it's not like that. I'm speaking in very broad terms.

You know how you keep on saying that moe is just something you feel? Well, I know what it feels like, and I know I don't feel it for Wolfram even though I love him to death. While that might not be an insurmountable issue for you, that's because it's not--it's not the "rooting for them to be happy", it's the "why are you rooting for them to be happy" that makes the difference between "moe" and "non-moe". It's like trying to define moe as "love of a character" and what I was trying to get across with the Wolfram example is that it isn't the case at all.

Whereas "wanting to protect" or "wanting her to win" or "wanting her to have a warm blanket" says more about you than the character themselves. "Wanting to protect" doesn't mean that person would want to be protected. Being warm and winning aren't always the best things for them--as characters--too. Being soothed by a character doesn't mean they would choose to soothe you if given the choice. That's what I mean by "objectifying"--the character is in service to the viewer rather than the viewer extending the effort to be in sync with the character.

This isn't always a bad thing, though. When you emphasize with a character, you can also be "betrayed" by a character because they don't live up to your own image of what you want. Like Shinji from Evangelion for a lot of fanboys. Whereas with moe, since it is a "looking from afar" perspective, it allows you to take in the entirety of the character while maintaining that separation. Flaws that you don't want in a personal avatar can become endearing. Personally, I tend to like characters because of their flaws, but I know a lot of people don't--and I think moe helps bridge that gap for people that tend to have issues in that direction.

It's not like moe is a constant thing either. Using Conrad again, I don't really find him moe either most of the time. Conrad is an example of the "gap" principle coming into play. I, uh, doubt many of the people reading this thread have ever seen KKM, but one of the biggest problems with the series and Conrad's characterization is that every other major character except Conrad is brutally mocked within the anime itself.

Whether it's Gwendel "Your Theme Song is the Love Theme of the Godfather" von Voltaire's obsession with knitting whenever he gets stressed, or Wolfram flouncing around in a pink négligée, everyone except Conrad gets the piss taken out of them regularly. Therefore when Conrad is picked on and has a hurt reaction, that gap between "the only 100% serious character in the series" VS "he sounds like he's about to cry because Yuuri hates his puns" is what induces the moe.

That sounds pretty fun. Not exactly the same, but that makes me think of the way I feel when I hear Kawakami Tomoko, as Utena, reading out the title of the fifth episode, in the preview for it. I would disgrace myself trying to recall how many times I've actually rewound the chapter to hear her say the word "Finale" there. It's so...

Yep, that's the "gap" coming into play. It's very powerful when used properly!


That's the whole beauty of feeling moe for illustrations of fictional characters. You can objectify all you want, because nobody gets hurt in the end. In real life, it would be completely unacceptable for me to feel moe for anyone (assuming I even could) in the same way I feel moe for certain anime characters. Here, we're not dealing with real people, just abstract concepts of given personality types.

Problem being that that distinction isn't really implicit in the term. I remember several years ago, my disgust at all the otaku characters cooing over how "moeeee~" Hermes is in Densha Otoko. Were it a strictly anime term, that would be one thing, but moe has no such distinction and people don't seem to have a problem either using it as a RL term or rejecting RL girls for not being moe. Thus where the "unhealthy" comes in.

[Citizen Klaus]

That's the whole beauty of feeling moe for illustrations of fictional characters. You can objectify all you want, because nobody gets hurt in the end. In real life, it would be completely unacceptable for me to feel moe for anyone (assuming I even could) in the same way I feel moe for certain anime characters. Here, we're not dealing with real people, just abstract concepts of given personality types.

Problem being that that distinction isn't really implicit in the term. I remember several years ago, my disgust at all the otaku characters cooing over how "moeeee~" Hermes is in Densha Otoko. Were it a strictly anime term, that would be one thing, but moe has no such distinction and people don't seem to have a problem either using it as a RL term or rejecting RL girls for not being moe. Thus where the "unhealthy" comes in.

The fault, then, is in the application of the concept, not in the concept itself.

[musouka]

The fault, then, is in the application of the concept, not in the concept itself.

No one sad the concept was faulty, though. Just that, like most things, it can have unhealthy applications.

[Fudce]

Problem being that that distinction isn't really implicit in the term. I remember several years ago, my disgust at all the otaku characters cooing over how "moeeee~" Hermes is in Densha Otoko. Were it a strictly anime term, that would be one thing, but moe has no such distinction and people don't seem to have a problem either using it as a RL term or rejecting RL girls for not being moe. Thus where the "unhealthy" comes in.

Technically, if somebody rejects a girl for not being moe, then they don't understand what moe is. No person is moe. People may feel moe towards somebody, but that does not make that character "moe".

[musouka]

Technically, if somebody rejects a girl for not being moe, then they don't understand what moe is. No person is moe. People may feel moe towards somebody, but that does not make that character "moe".

More like "rejecting RL girls for not being moe-inducing".

[Citizen Klaus]

Whereas "wanting to protect" or "wanting her to win" or "wanting her to have a warm blanket" says more about you than the character themselves. "Wanting to protect" doesn't mean that person would want to be protected. Being warm and winning aren't always the best things for them--as characters--too. Being soothed by a character doesn't mean they would choose to soothe you if given the choice. That's what I mean by "objectifying"--the character is in service to the viewer rather than the viewer extending the effort to be in sync with the character.


I suppose this distinction is dependent on whether one views fictional characters in a modernist or postmodernist sense. The former would hold that fictional characters are individuals residing within a narrative world and deserve to be treated with the dignity that we accord individuals in our world. The latter, by contrast, would hold that fictional characters are nothing more than rhetorical constructs intended to serve as means to a narrative end, be it by advancing the plot or by facilitating simulated character interaction. Either way, the postmodernist view would hold that fictional characters are inherently objects, not subjects. Thus, the question of objectification is moot, since there is no other conceptual possibility.

[musouka]

Thus, the question of objectification is moot, since there is no other conceptual possibility.

But as you, yourself said, there are two ways of looking at characters. One is as extensions of us as people ("with dignity") the other is as an objects to fufill the viewer. If there are two, then the question of objectification isn't "moot"--and it becomes a question if the objectification/moe is harming the viewer/those around the viewer. Since we'll assume that we aren't getting into that pesky RL grey area and we're talking about fictional characters.

For example, fictional characters might not be hurt, but other fans might be upset at the objectification. You see it a lot in the American comic book fandom when it comes to female fans of female superheroes. I, myself, tend to get turned off of discussions when the only thing I see in the threads is "so moe moe moeeeee" about a character.

In that respect, moe distances the viewer partaking in it because it is such a "personal emotion"--it's not conducive to conversation or fannish interaction. It can make the viewer partaking look shallow and self centered.

[Citizen Klaus]

Thus, the question of objectification is moot, since there is no other conceptual possibility.

But as you, yourself said, there are two ways of looking at characters. One is as extensions of us as people ("with dignity") the other is as an objects to fufill the viewer. If there are two, then the question of objectification isn't "moot"

I meant that the question of objectification is moot if one accepts the postmodern view of the nature of fictional characters. Hence, "thus". I apologize if I wasn't entirely clear.


--it's just a question if the objectification/moe is harming the viewer/those around the viewer. Since we'll assume that we aren't getting into that pesky RL grey area and we're talking about fictional characters.

For example, fictional characters might not be hurt, but other fans might be upset at the objectification. You see it a lot in the American comic book fandom when it comes to female fans of female superheroes. I, myself, tend to get turned off of discussions when the only thing I see in the threads is "so moe moe moeeeee" about a character.

In that respect, moe distances the viewer partaking in it because it is such a "personal emotion"--it's not conducive to conversation or fannish interaction. It can make the viewer partaking look shallow and self centered.

I understand where you're coming from, but I admit that I don't understand the problem. Personally, I don't believe it's even possible to hold a coherent conversation centered around reactions to characters or stories, since one's response to either must necessarily be personal. Our reactions to fictional works are shaped by our life experiences; ergo, no two people are likely to experience a given work in exactly the same way.

This lack of common ground, I feel, is what renders impossible -- at least for me -- serious discussion of narratives and characters. If one is to discuss these things, it must be in structural terms: how do these elements work together to advance the greater work's narrative goal(s)?

[musouka]

Our reactions to fictional works are shaped by our life experiences; ergo, no two people are likely to experience a given work in exactly the same way.

But that's like saying that since none of us have the same lives, then communication with other people is impossible. I tend to find what you said next more interesting fodder for conversation, though:

If one is to discuss these things, it must be in structural terms: how do these elements work together to advance the greater work's narrative goal(s)?

That's worth talking about at least, isn't it? And, as you said, moe doesn't really have a place in that, so if the only way you're looking at a series is through "moe-lenses", then that does limit your ability to discuss the series.

I might love Suzaku from Code Geass with a burning passion, but I probably wouldn't be very interesting to talk to if my reactions to him centered around "Suzaku so moe~"

[Citizen Klaus]

Our reactions to fictional works are shaped by our life experiences; ergo, no two people are likely to experience a given work in exactly the same way.

But that's like saying that since none of us have the same lives, then communication with other people is impossible.

No, just that communication regarding certain topics is impossible. There are always experiences so personal we can't possibly discuss them and expect anyone else to understand; what I'm saying is that this impossibility of communication also expands beyond such topics to include even things we might wish to talk about, like how we respond to a particular character.

We can discuss it, but it won't be a true conversation; it'll be "I saw the character as being x." "I, on the other hand, saw the character as being y."


And, as you said, moe doesn't really have a place in that, so if the only way you're looking at a series is through "moe-lenses", then that does limit your ability to discuss the series.

I might love Suzaku from Code Geass with a burning passion, but I probably wouldn't be very interesting to talk to if my reactions to him centered around "Suzaku so moe~"

I get the feeling that we've moved beyond the problem of objectifying fictional characters in terms of personal feelings of moe.

In any event, I agree that discussion of a series has to be on terms other than which character is most productive of feelings of moe.

[musouka]

We can discuss it, but it won't be a true conversation; it'll be "I saw the character as being x." "I, on the other hand, saw the character as being y."

Hmm, are you by chance the type of person that falls into a "no wrong views" of a character? I guess I don't really think characters are so nebulous as to be totally defined by the viewers. While whether or not a character works for you is of course, entirely your own matter, things like a character "being x" or "y" can usually be answered through close attention from the narrative itself.

And even if it can't, there's still value to be had in exchanging opinions. It might make you look at the characters a different way than if your perspective remained unchallenged. (Trotting out Conrad as an example again, I used to hate the guy. But through discussion with a friend and reading the novels, now he's one of my absolute favorites)

[something]

That's what I mean by "objectifying"--the character is in service to the viewer rather than the viewer extending the effort to be in sync with the character.
I still don't know if this distinction is necessarily meaningful. The simple fact that none of the characters are real means you can't ever get very close to them, moe or no moe. Hell, it's hard getting close to and understanding real people most of the time too - the vast majority of people we interact with over the course of our lives are only dealt with purely in financial and/or power relationships. People you can truly get to know and understand and extend yourself to with the understanding that they want you to are rare. How are we supposed to ask for that much or more from fictional creations of another human being's mind?

That's why no matter how many times you describe it, I still don't see much qualitative difference between what you're expressing about Wolfram and what I've felt about Yuno or Nagisa or CC. Or how, given your explanation of objectification, your feelings about Wolfram are less "objectifying" than what others are described. If we're talking about what the character "wants" (isn't that a bit... difficult?), who says Wolfram "wants" you to feel the way you feel about him? Or to feel anything at all? Maybe he doesn't even want us weird people watching him at all. (Where do you stop when speculating on a fictional entity's "feelings"?)

I don't know, I just can't wrap my head around the distinction you're making. It seems extremely subtle and it relies a lot on highly subjective interpretations of what a made up character would think about how we think about them.

Note that I'm not saying nobody goes to unhealthy extremes. I said early on in this thread that that happens. And not all moe is equally pure, because not all shows present situations that are meant to be taken equally seriously or deeply. (Really, Louise from ZnT is often "moe", but if I took that show or its characters too seriously in any respect I'd be a lunatic!)

But objectification just doesn't strike me as an inherent feature of the concept, unless we just admit that all entertainment, or for that matter human relationships, requires objectification on some level. If entertainment is not serving your needs and interests in some way, it's no longer entertaining. And in that case, I don't think the "moe" feeling can or should be particularly singled out as inherently more objectifying than other viewer reactions.

[Citizen Klaus]

(Really, Louise from ZnT is often "moe", but if I took that show or its characters too seriously in any respect I'd be a lunatic!)

Just out of curiosity (you understand), what would you consider to be taking ZnT too seriously?

[musouka]

I don't know, I just can't wrap my head around the distinction you're making. It seems extremely subtle and it relies a lot on highly subjective interpretations of what a made up character would think about how we think about them.

No, I must not be being clear. "Wolfram" as a fictional character doesn't care if I find his pink nightgown the most moe thing on earth, or if I think it's an interesting and amusing facet of of how he views Yuuri's desires and Wolfram's own relationship to him. The difference rests with me the viewer and how I regard this character.

"Pink nightgown is cute" is looking at it from a distance. "Pink nightgown says something about Wolfram" is digging in to the character himself. "This news is sad because losing a home is sad" VS "this news makes me sad because I would hate to lose my home".

[something]

Just out of curiosity (you understand), what would you consider to be taking ZnT too seriously?
I don't even know that I can put it into words. If you watch the show (or have you already?) you might understand what I mean. :sd: I suppose I could just say it's tough to feel a really deep, intense connection to anyone in a show where everything that's happening is illogical and ridiculous. Doesn't mean it's not way, way entertaining though, and good at doing the things I keep watching it for (having given up on things like "a good plot" and "competent pacing" makes the show a lot easier to enjoy).

Actually, there's a good thread in the recommendations forum asking about it right now, and I've posted some detailed thoughts on what type of show it is there. Might be better to check in there as I don't want to go off topic in this thread talking about ZnT.

[something]

"Pink nightgown is cute" is looking at it from a distance. "Pink nightgown says something about Wolfram" is digging in to the character himself. "This news is sad because losing a home is sad" VS "this news makes me sad because I would hate to lose my home".
And again, I just don't think these two are mutually exclusive or even necessarily in conflict. I find they're more likely to go hand-in-hand for me, and moe as I understand/feel it isn't synonymous with the former. That is why we're not agreeing on this... ::shrugs::

[Citizen Klaus]

We can discuss it, but it won't be a true conversation; it'll be "I saw the character as being x." "I, on the other hand, saw the character as being y."

Hmm, are you by chance the type of person that falls into a "no wrong views" of a character? I guess I don't really think characters are so nebulous as to be totally defined by the viewers. While whether or not a character works for you is of course, entirely your own matter, things like a character "being x" or "y" can usually be answered through close attention from the narrative itself.

I think I worded that incorrectly. It would have been better stated as "My perception of the character was x," and so forth.

Factual plot details are pretty indisputable: Hamlet slays his uncle. No room for debate there.

You can discuss motivations -- why did Hamlet slay his uncle? -- but once the discussion strays into territory no longer supported by citation from the text, you're off into the wilds of speculation. Personal tolerances for this sort of discussion vary; I'm admittedly not a fan.

Ultimately, even in this example, the discussion of motivations will ultimately boil down to the exchange of opinions you described (especially if the conversation has moved on to speculation). Once you've reached that point, I'm not sure that there's anything meaningful left to say, unless someone wasn't clear about something in the original text.


And even if it can't, there's still value to be had in exchanging opinions. It might make you look at the characters a different way than if your perspective remained unchallenged. (Trotting out Conrad as an example again, I used to hate the guy. But through discussion with a friend and reading the novels, now he's one of my absolute favorites)

But is the new perspective on the character one supported by the text, or is it grounded in speculation? If the former, I agree that there is value to the conversation. If the latter, the conversation might be valuable in strictly emotional terms, but not with respect to anything more substantive.

[Citizen Klaus]

Just out of curiosity (you understand), what would you consider to be taking ZnT too seriously?
I don't even know that I can put it into words. If you watch the show (or have you already?) you might understand what I mean. :sd:

I have not seen the show, but I do collect doujinshi and official works. Megami's ZnT Visual Collection, in particular, is quite luscious. Comes with a cute little cardboard stand-up of Louise reluctantly giving a little fan service.


I suppose I could just say it's tough to feel a really deep, intense connection to anyone in a show where everything that's happening is illogical and ridiculous. Doesn't mean it's not way, way entertaining though, and good at doing the things I keep watching it for (having given up on things like "a good plot" and "competent pacing" makes the show a lot easier to enjoy).


An illogical and ridiculous plot doesn't have to rule out feeling moe for a character, though. Just ask any Sister Princess fan who still remained a fan after watching the first TV series.

[something]

An illogical and ridiculous plot doesn't have to rule out feeling moe for a character, though. Just ask any Sister Princess fan who still remained a fan after watching the first TV series.
I know. In the post you quoted I said Louise totally got my moe going (though I like her for other reasons too), but I'm a sucker for tsundere types anyway. It's just... definitely a different type/degree of moe feeling, because it's a very different type of show from, say... Clannad. I don't view ZnT as seriously, because it's rare that the show even treats itself or its characters seriously to begin with :sd:

[musouka]

You can discuss motivations -- why did Hamlet slay his uncle? -- but once the discussion strays into territory no longer supported by citation from the text, you're off into the wilds of speculation. Personal tolerances for this sort of discussion vary; I'm admittedly not a fan.

Well, yeah, which is why you should always have a solid backing when you're talking about characters. I remember a friend of mine, when watching the first ep of HikaGo, INSISTED that Akira's dad had been abusive to him because he cried nd apologized to him after losing to Hikaru. Even though later elements in the series totally disproved her theory, she still held to it. That sort of thing is both frustrating and ridiculous.

But is the new perspective on the character one supported by the text, or is it grounded in speculation? If the former, I agree that there is value to the conversation. If the latter, the conversation might be valuable in strictly emotional terms, but not with respect to anything more substantive.

Oh, I think you're right when it comes to any discussion having to be grounded in the narrative. But "I really, really like this character a lot" is unlikely to change anyone's feelings. Confronting someone's preconceived notions, on the other hand, can help provided they're open enough to change.

[Citizen Klaus]

An illogical and ridiculous plot doesn't have to rule out feeling moe for a character, though. Just ask any Sister Princess fan who still remained a fan after watching the first TV series.
I know. In the post you quoted I said Louise totally got my moe going (though I like her for other reasons too), but I'm a sucker for tsundere types anyway. It's just... definitely a different type/degree of moe feeling, because it's a very different type of show from, say... Clannad. I don't view ZnT as seriously, because it's rare that the show even treats itself or its characters seriously to begin with :sd:


I still don't quite get why that would make feelings of moe for Louise any less pure than feelings of moe for any of the Clannad girls. It's the character, after all, and not the show.

[Fencedude]

I still don't quite get why that would make feelings of moe for Louise any less pure than feelings of moe for any of the Clannad girls. It's the character, after all, and not the show.

Its also how the show treats its characters. And how they are generally characterized.

As for the rest of this discussion, pft. You all think too much about this stuff!

[Citizen Klaus]

But is the new perspective on the character one supported by the text, or is it grounded in speculation? If the former, I agree that there is value to the conversation. If the latter, the conversation might be valuable in strictly emotional terms, but not with respect to anything more substantive.

Oh, I think you're right when it comes to any discussion having to be grounded in the narrative. But "I really, really like this character a lot" is unlikely to change anyone's feelings. Confronting someone's preconceived notions, on the other hand, can help provided they're open enough to change.

Someone's preconceived notion of a character doesn't necessarily need to change if I really like said character.

Ex.: I say I like XX-chan from whatever show currently happens to be popular. something replies to me and says "Klaus, you've blown a gasket. There's no way anyone could possibly like XX-chan. She's the most misbegotten creation ever to emerge from pen and ink." That sort of opinion doesn't change my feelings, nor would it inspire me to correct something's errant ways, defend XX-chan's honor, or what-have-you.

Apologies, something, for appropriating your personage, but it's getting late and my rhetorical font is running dry.

[something]

I still don't quite get why that would make feelings of moe for Louise any less pure than feelings of moe for any of the Clannad girls.
Because that's just how I feel. With the Clannad girls, I care about how they're feeling, and why, and what's going to happen to them next, etc. Such thoughts form a pretty central part of my experience of the show and my relationship to the characters. With Louise, it's... different. For one, I feel moe for her less often than I do for the Clannad girls. Secondly, it's not as intense a feeling. Thirdly, often just as I get the feeling, the story has jumped off on some other tangent and she's already blowing up Saito and yelling again. :sd:

It's the character, after all, and not the show.
Ah, no, not entirely. I think of moe as situational, remember? Characters themselves are not inherently moe regardless of what's going on. If they were, then I would always feel moe for them, or I would never feel moe for them, and that's definitely not the case!

It's not so much a question of "is Louise moe?" but rather whether or not the happenings on screen are something I find moe. Moe is definitely not something that can be divorced from a larger context.

[something]

Its also how the show treats its characters. And how they are generally characterized.
Right. Even JC Staff doesn't seem to take ZnT very seriously, so I think I can be forgiven for not investing nearly as much emotional energy in that show. I'm pretty content a lot of the time to just sit back and laugh and enjoy the fanservice. It's got some pretty nice romantic/emotional moments here and there, but they aren't the focus of the show.

As for the rest of this discussion, pft. You all think too much about this stuff!
Yeah, I know >_>

I think I'll take my away message's advice and actually go to sleep. I swear one day I will really go to sleep when I say I'm going to, and not 30-120 minutes later. :sd:

[Draneor]

Characters themselves are not inherently moe regardless of what's going on. If they were, then I would always feel moe for them, or I would never feel moe for them, and that's definitely not the case!

I'm going to have to disagree here. I've certainly felt moe about a character as soon as I saw her character design. Also, I just don't think you can make this restriction based upon how the word is actually used. For one, Hatsune Miku--who's clearly moe to tens of thousands of people and designed to be so--has no real background, beyond what fans give her. A girl with an ideal zettai ryouiki is still moe, even if she never says a word (actually, a tsundere, twin-tailed girl in knee-high socks who cannot speak because of a tragic event when she was seven sounds pretty moe...). There are entire magazines with original characters that sell to people who find them moe, not to mention books on the subject, etc.

The industry has noticed what traits people like, and they provide them. Even if an individual doesn't feel moe for a character (for example, I loathe Asa from Shuffle more than any other character ever made, more than the depths of hell, more than pizza...), they can still recognize that a character has a certain trait that many people do find moe. I happen to never like sensei type characters and almost never like onee-san type characters (Oto-nee and the twin sisters from kissxsis being very rare exceptions). Still, when I encounter one, I am aware that many people do find those types of characters moe, and the character was designed to exploit that. Regardless of how I feel, those characters are still designed to be moe--just not for me. Granted, a character can fail at invoking moe in almost anyone.

Although definitely a good background and personality can enhance how moe a character feels to an individual. It most certainly does for me, anyway.

[Quarkboy]

You walk in on your friend, transfixed to the computer screen watching "kamichu". He turns to you (briefly), saying: "I don't know exactly what this is, but I want moe!"

And thus, a legend begins...

[musouka]

Ah, sleep does help--I think I figured out the tangle, something.

1. The issue was with the way I edited that paragraph on Wolfram. Originally it was just "That's because I'm too caught up in his struggles as a character. So I can't feel moe when he's embarassed or hurt or makes mistakes, because I can't help but think about how I'd feel in his situation."

I added in "I love seeing him step up to the plate and be a source of strength for Yuuri. I love that even with his bigotry against humans in general, he has enough love in him to adopt a little human girl as his daughter" because those are the things that make him my favorite, not the reasons I don't find him moe.

I obviously wasn't thinking about what I was writing, so I can see where the confusion came from. Sorry about that.

2. Do you have any favorite characters you don't find moe? Maybe if you think about it that way, it'll be easier to connect with what I was attempting to express.

[something]

2. Do you have any favorite characters you don't find moe? Maybe if you think about it that way, it'll be easier to connect with what I was attempting to express.
Someone I've never ever felt moe for, or just a character for whom moe is not the primary force at work? The former is hard, because it's easy for me to feel at least shallow moe over lots of things. But "Miyuki walked into a wall" in Lucky Star is worlds away from "oh god Yuno in Hidamarix365 ep 1".

I had typed out examples and explanations where moe was not the primary feeling (Osaka, Kusanagi Motoko, Kyon, Konata, Hisoka [don't ask how he came to mind]), but I think you're asking for something else. A certain type of favorite character, right? Not just someone who is the most fun to watch, but a character I feel a deep connection to, one that goes beyond mere amusement. A character I truly sympathize with and all the other stuff you've tried to explain.

But even if I tried to name names, we'd run into the same roadblock: your view is that a character such as that would be an example of a beloved but not moe character, like Wolfram for you. My view would be that those traits do not exclude, but more often facilitate, moe. We also disagree on just how to talk about those feelings are, because there are some differences in how we view the relationship between a consumer and a fictional work.

It's more fundamental an issue than whether I've felt the same way you do about a character - it goes to the very basis of what those feelings mean to us. So if I gave detailed examples, I don't know that it would bring us any closer to common understanding, let alone agreement.

[musouka]

Someone I've never ever felt moe for, or just a character for whom moe is not the primary force at work?

The latter, not the former.

but I think you're asking for something else. A certain type of favorite character, right?

Well, that really depends upon how you define favorite. Wolfram is my favorite character because he's the one I find most interesting and rewarding to watch. It's not that Wolfram is a special sort of favorite that exceeds all other of my favorites, moe and non, he just happens to be the example I'm using as the difference between how someone relates to a character through "moe" and "non-moe".

My other favorite character in the series, Adelbert, is totally moe. It's not that one is superior to the other, they're just different.

Then again, maybe it IS just my sense of moe that's strange. (http://i33.tinypic.com/t9bpn5.jpg) ^^;; (Adelbert is to the left, Wolfram to the right...)

But even if I tried to name names, we'd run into the same roadblock: your view is that a character such as that would be an example of a beloved but not moe character, like Wolfram for you. My view would be that those traits do not exclude, but more often facilitate, moe.

Hmm, I'm confused by this. To me, there's a difference in how I view Adelbert and Wolfram, even though they're first and second favorite respectively. Maybe there needs to be that element of physical attraction--I'm not into pretty boys--or a large "gap" for me to feel moe towards a character, I don't know.

The reason I asked is because if those characters are your favorites and you don't feel moe towards them, then the obvious next step is to ask why that's the case for them and not others.

[something]

The reason I asked is because if those characters are your favorites and you don't feel moe towards them, then the obvious next step is to ask why that's the case for them and not others.
Even if it's obvious I'm not sure there's a consistent answer. Osaka is hilarious and adorable but I think the toughest choice she had to make in the whole series was between escalators and elevators. Kyon is deliciously witty and one of the best "everyman" characters ever but I never saw many reasons to moe for him. Motoko is one of the toughest women in anime and even though I do greatly appreciate the depth that her insecurities about a man/machine existence provide, it's her role as "The Major" that really seals the deal.

Like I mentioned before, there's not necessarily "a moe type", and it's not just about how a character acts but also what happens to them.

If Nagisa were the lead character not in Clannad but in Galaxy Angel she would not be one of my most moe-inducing characters ever. I'd probably still feel pretty moe for her but without the depth and passion that the events of Clannad stir up in me. Instead it'd be like the moe I feel for Milfeulle which is real, but fleeting and inconsistent, seeing as how the whole GA universe more or less resets itself every seven and a half minutes.

Better example maybe: if Ghost in the Shell were about Motoko's pre-Section 9 pre-war backstory instead of anti-terrorist corruption-busting cyberpunk, the moe might hit the roof. Why? Totally different situation.

So I could try to list a number of my favorite characters and determine why some make me moe and others don't, but I don't think there would be a strong common thread. Moe is too organic and personal for me to pin down very well.

[MattB]

As I waddle through this topic, I find myself agreeing with everybody (except Quarkboy). Weird.

Maybe "objectification" simply isn't the right word for what Musouka is describing, because it's too broad. But it is safe to say that some specific character is the object of one's moe (which is an anagram for emo! EVIL). Taking that point of view, the feeling of moe is decidedly directed inward, and it is not conducive to a greater understanding of the character. Self serving, might be a better description.

Moe wants nothing other than more moe -- this I think is the unhealthy aspect. The feeling of closeness and desire to see more of the character is, then, a direct result of how they made you feel, coupled with an expectation that it'll happen again. (Which ties in to what something was talking about: while a character showing weakness can be moe-inducing, there is an expectation for, and associated moe episode during, the character's redemption. If the character never improves, the potential for more moe dwindles.)

I think it's just like with the more-negative connotation of otaku -- the degree to which you're hopped up on moe determines whether it's bad for you. There certainly are consequences that can bite you in real life, if you don't keep that particular feeling under control.

I think the conversation is getting muddled because discussions of other, similar feelings are working their way in. Things that seem to me as not part of moe, but perhaps are enablers or causes of moe: sympathy, pride (i.e. the sports team argument), fluffy cuteness, ..., mokkori!

:horse:

:relief:

:bowsmiley:

[Njr Scrawl]

This has to be the most interesting thread that I've read on the subject so far. A recent example for me: Listening to one of the special Kyou Kara Maou drama CDs in which Muraken is mercilessly picking on Conrad. Conrad is normally a very stoic, sure-of-himself type character, so whenever I hear him confused or upset it's very, very moe. That sounds pretty fun. :sdsmiley: Not exactly the same, but that makes me think of the way I feel when I hear Kawakami Tomoko, as Utena, reading out the title of the fifth episode, in the preview for it. I would disgrace myself trying to recall how many times I've actually rewound the chapter to hear her say the word "Finale" there. It's so... :shy:

One thing that always conjures up the moe feeling in me is the cliched, dark-haired onee-sama character. I can feel attraction and empathy pretty much simultaneously, and this character usually becomes my favorite in the cast for one reason or another (recently, it seems that MariMite has broken a streak of sorts, where that element is concerned...)

I always feel moe towards Wakaba in Utena. Can understand Utena's affection for her easily. :catgirl:

I also wish there was more Utena herself in the show. :noodle:

Its possible to feel moé toward older characters too. Kyoko in Maison Ikkoku is an example for me.

There are also som sweet elderly people in anime I've felt fond of in the past.

[Serial Experiments Nobue]

Its possible to feel moé toward older characters too. Kyoko in Maison Ikkoku is an example for me.

And Mayuko Chigasaki from NieA_7 for me. If ever there was a character that I wanted to cheer up and look after, it's Mayuko.

[oldsteranimefan]

I think that there might be a diffrence between how American fans and Japanese fans view moe. But, when I think of moe I think of Tsukasa from Luck Star, I just enjoy watching her do her thing, and the same thing goes for the young girls in Ichigo Mashimaro series. For me moe in anime is the same feeling I get when watching a cute puppy dog playing in a yard, I just like watching and enjoying them.

But if you want a definition of moe straight from Ken Akamatsu one of the most prolific creators of moe click on this link.

http://matthew.animeblogger.net/archives/2005/07/20/wednesday_notes_akamatsu-sensei_talks_moe.php

Hope it helps.

[outlawed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzlTCmk_vd4\

If you understand the Tsukasa balsamic vinegar scene from Lucky Star then you understand moe.