Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Well, remember. Moe is not actually a trait of a character, but a specific emotional reaction the audience has to that character. Not every character that has vulnerabilities that make an audience feel for them will be considered moe because the audience just will not have that particular reaction. The potential for the character to be moe is always there, whether they are or are not moe is determined by the audience. Moe as an emotional response is characterized not just by being able to empathize with a character but also by something like wanting to take care of them or help them with emotional problems or... something along those lines. If the person watching the show feels that for a character, that is moe regardless of what sort of character inspired that feeling.
And as a general point on the topic, I wish people would respond to my thoughts on moe as a construct rather than specific examples. On the last page, I wrote a bit about what I thought defines moe. While it doesn't follow the definitions of all others, some have been feeding my own thoughts back to me somewhat, such as DYRE pointing out that moe is, in part, painting flaws in an endearing light.
I also feel this is too reductive:
See, you're falling into a flaw of 'this is good so it can't be moe.'
I don't consider moe as a character element necessarily bad, but when it becomes the focus of a work, especially in the context we're discussing and is popular, I think does more harm than good.
^ I think that's a valid definition, although the expression is widespread and the feeling is subjective.
You made me consider something further, though. That feeling can be sexually-motivated, so could moe be applied to a character whose flaws are not focused upon and isn't vulnerable? If so, the definition of moe could become so broad and subjective as to be useless in discussion.
One is the audience reaction, one of generally protectiveness, the kind directed to a child or puppy or kitten, applied toward a character seen as vulnerable. Though, unlike with a child or puppy or kitten, this reaction sometimes gets mixed in with sexuality; this is a well-known point of controversy.
The other is the aesthetic and character design that most typically gets used to elicit such a reaction. By this, we mean: young female human in animesque style, with large eyes, cute mannerisms, and other similar traits (such as clumsiness) that aim to cause positive attention from the audience.
Given that moe is nebulous and subjective at the best of times, I don't think those are unreasonable definitions.
Your proposed second definition for moe is in fact not a definition of moe at all. Rather, you are describing things that commonly cause moe, in the first sense you mentioned. This is a common point of confusion in discussions of moe. Moe is a reaction, not a set of traits. Certain traits, however, have shown to be likely to cause moe in a large amount of people. This does not mean the traits themselves are moe. A character who fits the second definition will likely be percieved as moe, but not because people are using "moe" in a different sense here, rather it is because those things are what makes the audience care for the character in the first place. Though, again, I'd argue that in the first definition, the feeling doesn't necessarily have to come from a character being vulnerable, and in fact it doesn't really matter where it comes from at all as what matters is the actual feeling.
Furthermore, Batman works are often written to explore his flaws and vulnerabilities, true, but not to paint him in an endearing light. There's a significant difference between endearment and sympathy, after all.
The objectives and results of Batman media fall outside my definition, or at least the films, games and animated stuff does.
And I would argue against Batman's appeal coming directly from his flaws. That he has those flaws isn't enough. That he has those flaws and triumphs anyway, and in service of justice and a better Gotham, is what makes him a sympathetic character. Sometimes he has help, but it's generally his own internal strength that pulls him through.
^^ I interpret those stories to be about his triumph and sacrifice in spite of his flaws. They aren't the focal point of the narrative, but they serve to support his characterisation. This is getting dangerously subjective, but for me, the most powerful and emotional moments of what I've seen has never been the reflection on his flaws or the pain in his past, but his independent triumph over those flaws and the validation of his moral perspective.
That is, his flaws and vulnerabilities serve a purpose beyond an immediate emotional reaction, and go on to significantly influence the plot and often the lives of other characters. In a moe show, flaws exist for the emotional response and little else. K-On!, lacking a consistent plot beyond being slice-of-life, uses the flaws of its protagonists as endearing factors and never has them influence a larger sequence of events.
On the other hand, Haruhi's flaws and vulnerabilities serve to establish conflict and to further character development. Whether they're endearing or not is peripheral to their actual purpose.
^^ But they do. Their triumphs might not be permanent, but every time Batman puts away a villain that appeals to his past, flaws and mistakes, that's a victory.
The point is that regular men and women build careers on going out into the world and preventing crime. That he does that is not a flaw at all, but entirely noble.
And yes, I'm certainly making that comparison. What resources are used to attain the desired result is beyond the point and scope of this topic, because this is essentially about intent. Human beings have spent much time, resources and effort on reducing and controlling crime. Whether it's one person or many is immaterial to the discussion. This is a noble cause, one man or many. And I'd say it's unquestionably noble in the case of Gotham, where the police are so corrupt that street law is more powerful than state legality.
^^ The things you listed at the end of your post may rightly be considered flaws, but that he carries out his tasks without killing and with respect to a greater sense of justice diminishes their relevance in my eyes and, I suspect, the eyes of many.