I’m less defending moe here and more defending its place in the subculture. The thoughts I decided to express became so long they might as well be a post of their own, so, here it is. This is a continuation of my previous post; please take a look at that first to fully understand why I’m expanding on Thompson’s article here.
According to Jason Thompson, this is contemporary ani-moe, period.
Otaku USA writer Jason Thompson wrote an article on his thoughts about moe sometime ago – a record of his article to be found here. The man can write, no doubt about it – his text here is sugarcoated with reference and eloquent device. However, a mass of references doesn’t immediately make a creditable argument. He references very different series, and attributes their directives to base human lusts and desires.
I understand it’s a cultural thing; an occurrence one would find disturbing if they are not part of the culture themselves. This is true; there are many aspects of the subculture that outsiders would find morally disturbing. The men of the Yanomamö culture embark on raids to plunder food and women from other villages. The more members of the opposing village killed, the more successful the raid. Their acts are atrocious to us. Likewise, our forums of lawyers yelling at one another and passive courting ceremonies would seem like pointless cowardice to them. Simply throwing sensitive cultural disparities out there without making a point of it could be considered an attack towards that culture. Especially when you accuse an entire mass of enthusiasts of possessing pedophilic – illegal – tendencies.
How about assuming that it is simply a primary nature of the anime/manga visual style? He says lolicon’s ‘new name’ is moe – a concept largely misunderstood. Magazine Lemon People featured erotic imagery of characters that appeared prepubescent – and its first issue was published in 1981. The ‘girl’s face on woman’s body’ art style isn’t some new fad that shames the fans. if something from that long ago persists until now, then isn’t it less likely to be a product of ‘declining birth rates’ or some new aspect of societal breakdown that infused the male mind with impure motives? We found this art style aesthetically beautiful.
Image very relevant.
The Venus of Willendorf sculptures commonly made by people in the Paleolithic age were shaped like near-obese women with protruding genitals, enormous breasts, no face and nonuniform bumps for hair. This was those peoples’ image of beauty. Some speculate the sculpture was an avatar of fertility, others say the figure drew parallels to a mushroom prominent in their culture, the breasts representing an elixir of immortality they made from these mushrooms and drank with milk. Either way, the sculpture’s implications, whether they be fertility or breastfeeding, deal fully with human sex. Are these people to be condemned for impure love for an idol who appears grotesque to us?
This is an image of beauty.
This is an image of beauty as well.
He preemptively displays his knowledge of the word ‘moe’, but employs it in a very narrow scope throughout the article. Moe isn’t pedophilia. Here, it’s infatuation with a facet of the subculture. What about meganekko moe, or dojikko moe, all within our subculture? Moe is not spoiled by a breach of innocence – if anything, the character’s reaction in a breach of innocence is moe in itself. There are many different kinds of moe. He knows it; he said so himself. If so, why does he only flaunt the term as morally unhealthy? He gives only three models with which we can display our love for things we find ‘moe’: “The innocent, vulnerable characters of moe manga might activate the reader’s nurturing instinct (moe), the predatory instinct (lolicon), or simply the desire to escape from the reader’s own skin and into an idealized fantasy world of women, where no discordant male presences intrude (yuri).”
So is this perception of beauty of ours only worth about as much as psychological defense mechanisms? Moe is locked within a triangle of projection, feral urges and escape from reality? Is that all there is to moe, the lolita complex or Yuri? I’d like to believe that we aren’t hallucinatory, uncouth animals; that as enthusiasts, we’re fueled by more than indecent urges for prepubescent bodies. By saying ‘pedophile’ is the ONLY word with which he can describe this aspect of anime, Thompson is in my opinion exhibiting severe tunnel vision.
If you ask me, I much prefer oranges.
Also, whether this helps you straighten your thoughts or not, it’s interesting to note that Thompson’s About page features walking and mask-making as part of his hobbies, and that ‘big, watery-eyed anime girl’ is not part of his favorite life forms. His site looks like this; an appearance I honestly don’t feel quite suits ‘one of the best-known manga critics in the US’.
And of course, the ultimatum is that despite Thompson’s article here, Otaku USA proceeds to say that Strike Witches’ moe ‘gloriously delivers on its promise’.
Does Otaku USA’s self-contradiction bother you? Does Thompson’s take on moe bother you in any way? Is Thompson right, and I perhaps way over my head? What are your thoughts?
Ningyo
Big thanks to BigJohnnySmith for finding the article for me.
Related posts:
February 11th, 2010 at 12:51 am
lol dood! You’re sounding a little bit like OEG! XD
Honestly though, I think the term moe is still slightly beyond the grasp of most “mainstream otaku”, and the likes of the Otaku USA staff. Their content already illustrates this. Already, it seems that either their understanding of this subculture is lacking, or they’re trying to distill it in such a way that the mainstream would understand it, ultimately misinterpreting it.
I must admit, that I don’t fully grasp moe myself, beyond the surface labeling of ultra-cute innocence. Travis Touchdown’s declaration of moe somewhat confused me even further. Wikipedia is no help either.
Outside of the term, you address the societal views towards moe, and the filtered glasses from an outside culture. The article I wrote a few years back may interest you:
http://radiantdreamer.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/are-you-a-hentai-otaku/
While it’s dated, and deals with the broader subject of hentai, the societal views and standpoints are roughly in line with your article.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:11 am
“He gives only three models with which we can display our love for things we find ‘moe’: ‘The innocent, vulnerable characters of moe manga might activate the reader’s nurturing instinct (moe), the predatory instinct (lolicon), or simply the desire to escape from the reader’s own skin and into an idealized fantasy world of women, where no discordant male presences intrude (yuri).’”
His argument falls flat because of this faulty assumption. That’s simply too narrow and too black-and-white for a term/ genre that’s really broad.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:56 am
Oh yeah… This reminded me that Otaku USA did have something against moe stuff when I was reading one of the issues. I didn’t bother reading what they wrote about it because it doesn’t show open-mindedness. One thing that I’d like to see how people approach anime is with an open mind, not stereotyping it with just either it’s all for kids (Sailor Moon, DBZ, PokeMon) or all for adults just because it has some nudity (Urotsukidoji, Ranma 1/2, Tenchi Muyo). These are the old stereotypes because I know I wasn’t allowed to rent Ranma from Blockbuster because they had a sticker on it that you had to be over 18 to rent it… Of course I’m talking off-topic since I’m not talking about moe, but it’s similar approach how the original article was written; without an open mind.
For myself, moe is defined as having feelings for a younger girl as if you’re her older brother. It was the first definition I found. That definition for moe and for me has expanded, but I keep true to this one. Such as Kyon’s little sister. I personally would love to have a little sister like her, cute yet impudent. But I’m sure someone who actually does have a younger sister will think I’m crazy ^^;
Oh by the way, there are a lot of anime that’s labelled as “moe” but I try not to label them as moe because I think it’s a label for characters not the show itself. I call those shows “cute anime” XD
February 11th, 2010 at 5:02 am
my definition of moe: annoying cute girls acting stupid or clumsy :P
February 11th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Hmm I like buying little petit bodies of girls with large heads recently haha, does that make me moe? :D
To be honest I mainly watch mecha shows and I don’t think too much about them even ^^ This is a very deep article you have written and frankly I don’t really understand the term moe. So many definitions of it…
I also read Radiant’s own article that he posted in his comment here. As for nendoroids I collect them because I find them very irresistible and cute ^^ But I have never watch the anime in which they come from!! Maybe fatherly instincts at work haha..
The 3rd and fourth picture really brought home the message of your article!
February 11th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Ps : if there is any definition of moe I want to adopt i’ll go with kluxorious definition haha!!!
February 11th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Currently, it seems that the term ‘moe’ is almost whatever you make it to be. To some people it is a thinly disguised cover for lolicon but I think that is an overly narrow view of moe. Basically, I think you are right in that there many types or flavors or moe and lolicon just happens to be one of them. Glasses are another. Cat ears, a timid personality, clumsiness, etc, are all examples of what I would consider moe. Quite simply, I would say it moe could be any feature or facet of a character that fans can single out with some emotional attachment. Well, innocence and purity are common threads that run through the various types of moe, so there are some limitations on definition.
Anyway, what you consider moe is exactly what you find attractive and want to see in a character ^^. At least that’s my opinion ;)
February 11th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Diserting on “Moe” is a very dangerous act of writing because i think almost everybody got his own definition of what “Moe” actually his.
I, sometimes, even consider myself to be “Moe” and i’m more than 18 year old and surely not a pedophile.
Using this word is very offending to me and i wasn’t even born in “Moe” sub-culture.
Basically in my own vision (which is unique to me) is anything that attract me in a girl representation whatever how old this girl is or how large her breasts are.
By saying “attraction” obviously i don’t mean only something sexual. :)
You described intelligently why comparing two concept of beauty in two different culture is dangerous and even inappropriate.
You may have your opinion but Thompson is going way too far.
Otaku’s are not pedophile and FPS players are not serial-killers.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I don’t really know what moe is myself but I think everyone has his/her own idea about it. One thing I’m sure is lebelling moe with negative word like pedophile is just unfair.
When something is popular or trendy, it’s quite normal that some people will try to tear it down or argue against it.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
@radiant
*gasp* You’re right! I accused him of different logical fallacies and even bashed his site!
Although, I still would at least like to think that I didn’t attack for the sake of compromising his sense of security. I made sure I had a point to get across with each jab. Or at least, I tried to.
Still, must be careful not to succumb to sadistic tendencies…
They’re definitely whimsical terms – ‘mainstream otaku’ almost already sounds like an oxymoron. I’d like to think they’re examples of how distinct and deep our culture can run; these terms as moe that are defined by sensory connotations instead of intrinsic meaning.
I think, because they’re terms defined by connotations, one doesn’t need to seek a universal meaning – as some of the later commenters said, we’ve all our own infatuations with anime; might as well say they’re moe to us.
@Yi
You know Yi, I was so wily that I included that portion just for you. I knew his narrow views on Yuri would push you over to my side >:D
No, I’m kidding, nothing that masterminded. Still, I definitely thought of you when I got to the part about his take on Yuri. That was definitely one of his more fallacious statements of the bunch; recalling devoted fans like you who analyze each series, pick out the tropes, the good, the bad and the pleasantly enjoyable, I felt that the genre was much more than that.
@rob
Yes, open-mindedness I believe is a worldly-good take on any occurrence; there are simply so many hundred thousands of cultural norms and moralities out there that a biased outlook would really limit one’s understanding. Alas, we as people naturally infer to our past experiences of what our society’s norms have taught us in our processes of cognition, thus making it difficult for us to attain true neutrality.
The topic you’ve highlighted, to do with age of consent and cultural sexuality, is right on with radiant’s article above, actually. And yes, after comparing to his as well, the ideas really coincide; they’re on the separate subjects of moe and sexuality, but the finality of it all really is how outsiders perceive our subculture, in correlation to their own.
I’ve had that thought before too, curled up in bed at some point with some cold; ‘If only I had a caring imouto to bring me my medicine…’ Also having thought that if I really had one I wouldn’t be saying that, because she’d probably be very annoying. Sigh, the glories of fiction…
You’re absolutely right there too; moe isn’t a genre, after all.
@klux
*insert three page long Ningyo rebuttal*
Ahem, well, it really is to each their own with what one finds ‘moe’ :p
@chubbybots
Some might call you an advocate of moe, but I’d call you a man of fine taste :)
Yes, our subculture has enough word connotations now to write a book about. Hopefully not titled Otacool, but.
I actually commend you for being able watch mecha series without over thinking it; I long for the days where I could just sit down and watch a series, enjoying the boobies flying around and not thinking about anything related to direction of narrative… That’s the way to go.
I actually learned about the Venus of Willendorf not all that long ago – my history and psychology classes are being used a remarkable amount in my posts it seems.
And well, to each their own moe ^^;
@anonymous_object
That is an overly narrow view, as with how Thompson’s views have been in general. Ah yes, I’d forgotten about nekomimi! They’re really quite essential when it comes to common anifan infatuations :)
“Any feature or facet of a character that fans can single out with some emotional attachment” is a swell definition. As the term is loosely defined now, your definition manages to encompass a great many of the connotations related to moe. Excellent! If another bloke decides to write a book about the anime otaku subculture again one day you should submit that to him. It’d save us a lot of post writing.
@Katsura-chan
My sentiments exactly. “Otakus are not pedophiles and FPS players are not serial-killers” is an excellent analogy – I feel these criticisms of today’s pop culture are very largely sensationalist drivel. I see the facts; Japan has their ‘children’s shows with prodigious amounts of violence’, yet Japanese children are some of the most well-behaved. Meanwhile, in North America, the ratings systems stops kids from watching any form of ‘abnormal theme’, even if this means they’re restricted from watching such critical films as Bowling for Columbine.
Your definition is similar to many of ours; it’s free-expression that isn’t completely tethered to sexuality at all.
Thanks for the analogy, Katsura-chan. You’ve got the moe :D
@Canne
Awhoops, you came before I finished the reply comment. I really need to hurry up :P
It seems many admit to getting thrown off by the term… Which is normal, in my opinion. ‘moe’ just has too many connotations now to be able to easily grasp, but it certainly is unfair to label it with such a broad, antagonizing term. I think everyone’s on the right track; nowadays one really can just construct their own idea of what moe is from the many connotations. Anonymous_object up there writes a contemporary definition.
You’re right; such things as cultural infatuations naturally attract criticism.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Didn’t read what he had to say, though I’m more likely to rage at his newfaggotry. That said it’s always nice to know what the casuals think.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
[...] here. Related On [...]
February 16th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I don’t know, I think I might have accidentally misinterpreted some of your article, but from what I gather, it seems this guy was a dummy who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Just speaking from personal experience, I’m still trying to figure out just what the hell “moe” really is.
However, what I DO know is that moe doesn’t encapsulate something primarily sexual. Be it yuri, lolicon, or whatever else this guy is talking about. Even IF it contained those 3, those 3 themselves aren’t inherently sexual. We make them sexual when we want, but in the end, people REALLY look for the story.
That’s the reason why people like anime in the first place :P
February 19th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
This is not an easy subject to talk about. “Meo” is kinda hard to understand when you’re from a different culture.
I did noticed that many people associate immediately this to evil and pedophilia.
Personally i don’t mind Meo style at all as long as it stays correct and not much over the line.
Once again i’m not very good to give my opinion… i’m not very gifted for this :(
February 19th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
yea, even after reading this “Moe” still does not have a solid definition in my head.
Whenever I hear the word “Moe” the first thing that pops into my head is Lucky Star for some reason. Gah.
February 21st, 2010 at 2:55 am
@Shin
Well, it’s interesting and enriching to see what the ‘casuals’ think, but I must say that I can’t always swallow it perfectly well. A la this essay.
@FaS
As we all are. You haven’t quite misinterpreted it, But I was more trying to present my views instead of appearing that strong about it ^^;
Well, lolicon at least is borderline sexual, but you’re right, they’re not inherently fully to do with sex. I suppose that’s so, when I think about it; the plot line is the main vehicle, with its drawbacks being less troubling to viewers if they enjoy the service or other devices. For some cases, but there are just too many series out there for me to arrive at a conclusion as to what is, or whether there is, the ultimate component of a series.
@Lyli
Definitely. Which is why I wrote in protest. For our sakes, it’s so much more. And nonsense, that’s your opinion and it’s perfectly fine. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, and nobody can be bad at giving or having one.
Well, following anonymous_object’s “Any feature or facet of a character that fans can single out with some emotional attachment” definition for moe, I rather like moe. It’s a cup of tea sort of thing, I guess.
@dai1313
anonymous_object worded it wonderfully above. That’s a general perception of moe, yes, I wouldn’t blame you for it. When I think of it though I think of the characters that give me this height of emotion: Hong Meiling, Haman Karn, Hatsune Miku, Marida Cruz. Some of those are very awkward to call ‘moe’, but I think it stands, as far as things are defined.