Stop watching moe, IJBM

Malkavian

I'm rereading this and noticing a lot of goal post moving. It's not endearing, it's sympathetic! There's not enough focus put on it so it doesn't count!

Then we're putting out what's good about Baman which is really utterly pointless to the debate because the point is that Batman's appeal lies in that he's an ultimately and completely flawed character and pretty much all moe characters are ultimately good and noble people who want to help out. (with extreme exception of characters like Yuno)

Something that qualifies your moe definition.

Ergo a poor definition.

MadassAlex

There's a difference between sympathetic and endearing. And focus was part of my definition, at least implicitly. I did state earlier, amongst Juan others that moe is nebulous and risks being universally applicable. We've discussed at length, via Batman and via more broad terms, how moe is an extension of what normally qualifies a character as sympathetic. Without focus, a moe character could be defined as any sympathetic character.

As for my moe definition, it included the celebration of flaws and vulnerability. Batman works fail to do either, painting his flaws rightly in dark tones.

Malkavian

As for my moe definition, it included the celebration of flaws and vulnerability. Batman works fail to do either, 

This is completely a hundred percent untrue. 

Batman comics and movies revel in how broken he is. It might be painted as logically unhealthy but it's always the part that draws people and ladies in. 

If we're going for an objective definition you can't go 'well it has to have this much' especially when you can't quantify exactly how much. Either it has it or it doesn't. Being wishy-washy like that once again falls into 'I like it so it's not moe'.

MillerCross

Batman works fail to do either, painting his flaws rightly in dark tones.

Some of them are, some of them are not. Like you pointed out, some of his flaws, like the fact that he's insane enough to go out and fight crime in the middle of the night with made up resources, with the government against him, because vigilantism is illegal, mind you, etc etc are clearly flaws demonstrating at least some psychological problems.

But his mental problems are what make him an exceptional and unique individual. It's his paranoia what makes him be always prepared for any situation. It's his willingness to attack someone regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty in order to obtain info what makes him an effective detective, etc etc.

His flaws are what make him stand up in a universe of Gods who walk amongst men and what makes most nerds go "so badass.".

They're as celebrated as they're looked down within the books, but the point is that the audience does celebrate these traits. And moe is first and foremost an audience definition, according to you. 

so you see, right there.

Malkavian

Yuki Nagato, not moe:

MadassAlex

^^ According to DYRE and yourself. I've been using the audience definition perspective for the sake of clear debate, but I consider it closer to what the creators knowingly write, because that influences the structure of the work in question and therefore focus. It also eases the subjectivity of the matter, because otherwise any character could be moe. Like Batman.

That said, the two definitions are not that far apart, given that well-known moe shows and characters are intentionally written for the response. The definition that includes personal response is wide open to subjectivity.

---

Batman comics and movies revel in how broken he is. It might be painted as logically unhealthy but it's always the part that draws people and ladies in.

---

Just because it's heavily present and interesting to the audience doesn't mean it's celebrated, which necessitates those flaws being portrayed positively.

---

If
we're going for an objective definition you can't go 'well it has to
have this much' especially when you can't quantify exactly how much.
Either it has it or it doesn't. Being wishy-washy like that once again
falls into 'I like it so it's not moe'.

---

This isn't a case of fractions or percentages, but whether flaws are glorified for the sake of audience endearment. A work having character flaws, even having flaws that can work to the benefit of the characters, doesn't count as glorification. It's how those flaws are treated within the context of the work. Moe shows use flaws for endearment, without negative effects towards the plot or character relationships. Works with more standard characterisation techniques use flaws as a measure of how a character deals with challenges. We know a character is heroic if they fight their flaws, and we know they're villanous if they give into them (very broadly speaking, but this is the general way of things).

And, like I've said, I've got little against moe as a point of characterisation. I just think it sucks in context of a whole work.

DYRE

The problem with trying to objectively define things as either moe or not moe is that it always seems to result in a definition that is either too inclusive or too restrictive.  By MadassAlex's definition, Madoka Magica would certainly not be a moe show (and likely the characters wouldn't be moe, as their flaws all for the most part contribute to the overall story and interactions between characters and the like), and yet its success is undeniably due in large part to the moe appeal of its cast.  Same goes for Evangelion and a lot of other shows.  Ignoring these shows when considering the phenomenon of moe is inevitably going to result in a skewed understanding of the concept and likely lead to further misinterpretation down the line.

You can still talk about shows and characters that deliberately try to invoke this response, and then you arrive at something close to the definition that you've been presenting, but I think it also is more useful in terms of how moe relates to otaku culture than it would be if you define it solely as a particular genre or character type.

MadassAlex

The subjective definition of moe, on the other hand, is far too open for the term to be meaningful beyond osmotic understanding within a niche.

Given that there might not be an in-between, perhaps the best course of action is to discuss moe in both clearly noted subjective and objective contexts?

DYRE

Well, to some extent I agree.  At the very least, it can with reasonably high certainty be determined if moe appeal was one of the primary considerations when designing a particular character or series or whatever.  And I do think it can be pretty useful to talk about that.  Though, it should be noted that a character like Haruhi Suzumiya should definitely be considered moe by absolutely any definition of the term if you want to be able to use it with anything close to an accurate meaning.  If you mean to talk about moe objectively in a way that actually only includes a very limited subset of what is typically considered to be moe, then it might be better to just not call it moe at all.

MadassAlex

I'm not sure about that, since I think the use of character flaws for endearment over plot or relationship purposes is pretty close to the mark. When a character's flaws happen to be endearing despite also contributing to plot and character relationships, not sure if moe, not sure if not moe. I'd lean towards "not moe", given that flaws aren't typically there to be endearing, but that's far from definitive.

Then again, all that's from the creator's perspective.

RedEyedAbyss

"The subjective definition of moe, on the other hand, is far too open for the term to be meaningful beyond osmotic understanding within a niche."

Yes, the whole point of starting a debate (in the formal sense) is to frame it in a context which you can actually argue for or against. In fact, if we're going to have an actual debate, we might as well simply drop the "moe" word altogether.

Anyways, maybe it's just my hatred of the idea of childhood, but I do find it irritating whenever character flaws are meant as endearing rather as something to be overcome. Then again, I suppose there's the existence of snarkers, who are never expected to improve or are usually the kind of character that is meant to be hated. And yet, I don't find it as irritating as weakness since there's at least an active element to it. The whole "protective" instinct comes off as sexist because then it seems like a girl is being treated like a teddy bear.

"And keep in mind that moe characters are always exceptionally pretty at the least, and some are inhumanly attractive. There's an implication that a flaw, when someone is beautiful, is justified by their sexual fitness and thus becomes endearing."

Reminds me of an issue I have with female characters. Male characters can have a wide variety of appearances, but females are always stuck with that same damn face most of the time.

glennmagusharvey

> The problem with trying to objectively define things as either moe or
not moe is that it always seems to result in a definition that is either
too inclusive or too restrictive.

That's why I argued for a two-meaning definition: one for things that pretty objectively pander toward audience tastes for excessive cuteness (such as K-On!) and one for the subjective feeling, that can be applied to characters not typically seen as designed to be moë.

Them

I have a hard time seeing Batman as moe, and I think it's because his psychological issues motivate his actions. As opposed to his inactions, I guess.

glennmagusharvey

Is Hamlet moë?

captainbrass

^ I doubt it. Whilst you are supposed to sympathise with his position, I'm not sure that's to the extent of wanting to hug him to stop his big sad eyes filling with tears. I also think it's relevant that the famous performances of Hamlet have been by guys in their thirties or even older - Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh. It's easier to find a cute tween/teenager moe than an adult.

That probably also goes for Batman.