Okay what is moe?

[hyl]

Originally Posted by cyth

Same goes for moe. To say that a show with a lineup of girls consisting of a tsundere, yandere, whateverdere isn't a moe show, THAT is feigning ignorance.

To be frank, that show doesn't have to be a "moe show", because you only described archetypes/character's personality traits.

Like Mirai Nikki has both a tsundere and a yandere (and a whole lot of more) in it's cast but good luck convincing anyone that Mirai Nikki is primarily moe.

Or other shows with yandere's in them like Death note , school days and maybe code geass. So i am feigning ignorance for not calling those shows "moe shows"?

Originally Posted by cyth

Perhaps something like, I don't know, Madoka isn't clear cut. Is it a moe show? Is it not? I don't think this question is that relevant. But does it have moe elements? Absolutely. Now, if any of you has the balls to say otherwise, then I'm done with this discussion.

Almost every anime has "moe elements", so your point is ?
Even the characters from the Aku no Hana anime can be moe for some people despite that most people don't seem to like the art.
<edit>
Let's take one of my previous posts as an example

Originally Posted by hyl

As for the other discussion
Let's assume that we can call moe a genre, what does it even tell us about a show?
-The characters (or most of them) in the show are moe?
Almost every animes have "moe" characters , including shows that are genre wise very different from eachother like Shakugan no Shana, NGE, TTGL, Kore wa zombie desku ka. .....
Overall i am disagreeing on the socalled moe genre, because that label doesn't tell us anything about a show but rather the character designs/traits of the show

So let's lump Madoka, Kore wa zombie desu ka, NGE, TTGL into the "moe genre".....
Ok, what have these shows in common aside from the subjective "moe factors" in all these shows? How is the "moe show" tag even remotely usefull to distinguish shows if these are completely different?
</edit>

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

To back up Kaisos Erranon, it's statement like this that make me think that using the word "moe" is utterly useless. See, cyth seems so secure about this, and yet you have at least two persons who totally disagree.
As things are now If I said "moe" I'd probably wouldn't communicate what I mean at all, since the other person would think about something completely different.

In the end I can only agree with what Relentless Flame said. It's a lost cause.

I don't think the word "moe" is useless, but what seems useless for me is that some people try to make "moe" into a genre (those people using "moe shows") while people don't seem to agree on how to define it.

[Reckoner]

Well before we get carried away here, the contention about moe being related to a sort of "checklist" of entertainment is not entirely unfounded.

I think when Cyth references a show with a tsundere/yandere/genki/etc. girl all featured in it, it goes to show what the clear approach of the show is. They want to offer an array of common personality archetypes to try and appeal to the audience with bishoujo girls. Does this qualify as a moe show? For all intensive purposes, I really do think it does.

There is this idea that a male audience will grow attached to these girls. This attachment can be formed in different ways, but I think this attachment is what basically amounts to a moe focused show. They expect their audience to feel a certain way about the girls being presented, and when they come prepackaged in predefined popular archetypes, selling them to their audience is that much easier.

I wouldn't say that this sort of checklist, harem style show defines moe, but it is easily seen as a moe show I would say. I believe the contention here should be simply that are shows easily decipherable as "moe," but we should be very aware that they do not define moe. Moe can be broadly applied, but so can other descriptors.

Just like MD geist should not be the representative of scifi in anime, I think we should also take good enough care to not represent the totality of moe shows with what what just described.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Then why not say that instead? Why not say "I like shows with lots of cute girls in them"? People will always know what you mean.
Saying "I like moe shows", for most people, will instantly remove Bakemonogatari and like works from consideration.

If I say that I like shows with lots of cute girls in them, people will just assume I'm another K-On! fanboy. It's really a no one situation.

While Bakemonogatari might be a stretch for some, I cut my teeth declaring myself a fan of stuff like Moon Phase, Kanon 2006, and Sola. The term and I go way back.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

So it's not really about picking and choosing definitions. It's about refusing to play on a rigged battlefield where someone has already declared themselves the winner.

Syn advanced a particular criticism of a well known trend in anime characters. I happen to like said trend and felt the need to mount a counter, regardless of whether I agree with her that this trend represents "moe" as a whole.

I don't think she was intentionally rigging it either - though I will not she has yet to give a reason why I should adopt her definition of what moe is, rather than, say, Galbraiths's "rarified psuedo-love for a fictional character", which is much more consistent with what I think the feeling of moe is.

There is this idea that a male audience will grow attached to these girls. This attachment can be formed in different ways, but I think this attachment is what basically amounts to a moe focused show. They expect their audience to feel a certain way about the girls being presented, and when they come prepackaged in predefined popular archetypes, selling them to their audience is that much easier.

Similarly, I classify the currently airing Crime Edge as a moe show on the basis that Iwai is definitely targetted at the so-called "moe otaku" audience. One can disagree with the terms I use but I think it would be hard to argue that the process I describe is not taking place. And I'm interested in defending the process, not just the word (I love Crime Edge).

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Well before we get carried away here, the contention about moe being related to a sort of "checklist" of entertainment is not entirely unfounded.

I think when Cyth references a show with a tsundere/yandere/genki/etc. girl all featured in it, it goes to show what the clear approach of the show is. They want to offer an array of common personality archetypes to try and appeal to the audience with bishoujo girls. Does this qualify as a moe show? For all intensive purposes, I really do think it does.

Doesn't every anime show have characters that have "moe personalities" or "moe appearances" trying to appeal to the (most of the time otaku-) audience ?
In fact i can't think of any show that is not trying to, unless the show was deliberately using all of it's characters as cardboard cutouts or as "fresh meat" to get killed off (like most American slasher movies or these socalled "torture porn movies").

Originally Posted by Reckoner

There is this idea that a male audience will grow attached to these girls. This attachment can be formed in different ways, but I think this attachment is what basically amounts to a moe focused show. They expect their audience to feel a certain way about the girls being presented, and when they come prepackaged in predefined popular archetypes, selling them to their audience is that much easier.

Growing attached to a character is more a direct result of how much you can relate with the characters, usually by empathy or sympathy. Personally i think "moe" is just one factor to this, because you can relate to characters without always needing "moe"

[cyth]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

That's a term you made up, I'm assuming?
Listen, this feels like your way of making everybody else but you and people who agree with you seem ignorant.

Film literacy is a valid term. Does being more specific bother you that much? And you wonder why I think you guys have persecution complex.

According to your definition, any show that relies on classic character archetypes is a "moe show". That's... I'm sorry, no, that's ridiculous.

Not any show, but any show that fandom reached a consensus on. Why would that be ridiculous?

Like tototum stated, "bishoujo show" is a far more applicable term that doesn't have the same baggage, and look how it's fallen out of use as "moe" has become a popular phrase.

Perhaps it is more applicable, but I don't see what's so wrong with it falling under the moe umbrella.

So, in other words, "I am right and you are wrong, QED."

In other words, this is not a discussion I'm willing to spend more time on, because you guys are too set in your way to even acknowledge something as basic as the concept of a moe element.

Originally Posted by hyl

Like Mirai Nikki has both a tsundere and a yandere (and a whole lot of more) in it's cast but good luck convincing anyone that Mirai Nikki is primarily moe.

Again, what's wrong with using the word in an appropriate context? I am not going to talk to some newbie and say the show is moe because of this and this, I'm going to say it's cool because of the action and psychopath characters. But when I'll be talking to someone who might actually know that these archetypes are staple moe elements, then I'm going to use that kind of vocabulary. Do I think Mirai Nikki is a moe show? Yes. Would I describe it to people as such? No. Would I talk about it as a moe show in an appropriate context? Yes. Would I use the term derogatorily? No, it would be a technical descriptor for the show (but to understand that you have to read Azuma, ohohoho~ EDIT: Or just read Reckoner's post above, he got the gist of it).

Or other shows with yandere's in them like Death note , school days and maybe code geass. So i am feigning ignorance for not calling those shows "moe shows"?

You are because we're talking about it and you know exactly what I mean by it. It is a slang term after all. As a general descriptor, you're right, it does not work.

Almost every anime has "moe elements", so your point is ? Even the characters from the Aku no Hana anime can be moe for some people despite that most people don't seem to like the art.

My point is you can use the word in this way and you don't need to deny its usage just because it doesn't fit your personal narrow definition. People use it to describe many things. The reason why we boil character or story concepts down is precisely because we want to make it easier to discuss them. Moe is just a very unfortunate word that managed to take on multiple meanings and associations, one of them being "moe elements". I use it in tandem with the fandom. It's not because I'm an Azuma fanboy, but many people adopted the way he uses it and discussions happen and I get to participate in them. And guess what? People understand what I'm talking about in those discussions. In others I scale down. When I'm talking about cute girls, I scale down even further. It's not hard.

I don't think the word "moe" is useless, but what seems useless for me is that some people try to make "moe" into a genre (those people using "moe shows") while people don't seem to agree on how to define it.

There are clear cases of shows that have fallen in this genre because of the fandom recognizing them as such. In most cases, the label isn't even being used derogatorily, that is all in your head, guys.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by cyth

Film literacy is a valid term. Does being more specific bother you that much? And you wonder why I think you guys have persecution complex.

Yes film literacy (or rather media literacy) does exist, but animation literacy?

Originally Posted by cyth

Not any show, but any show that fandom reached a consensus on. Why would that be ridiculous?

It's ridiculous in a sense that you are not distinguishing anything from each other. A moe show can be every show and how is that even an usefull label?

Originally Posted by cyth

In other words, this is not a discussion I'm willing to spend more time on, because you guys are too set in your way to even acknowledge something as basic as the concept of a moe element.

You are making it sound that your definition of moe element is absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by cyth

Again, what's wrong with using the word in an appropriate context? I am not going to talk to some newbie and say the show is moe because of this and this, I'm going to say it's cool because of the action and psychopath characters. But when I'll be talking to someone who might actually know that these archetypes are staple moe elements, then I'm going to use that kind of vocabulary. Do I think Mirai Nikki is a moe show? Yes. Would I describe it to people as such? No. Would I talk about it as a moe show in an appropriate context? Yes. Would I use the term derogatorily? No, it would be a technical descriptor for the show (but to understand that you have to read Azuma, ohohoho~ EDIT: Or just read Reckoner's post above, he got the gist of it).

Just because a show has a certain element in it, that doesn't mean it's primarly that kind of show.
If you have bothered reading what other people said, then nobody is denying that there are moe elements in a show but that doesn't make it a "moe show"
That's like the same debate that i had in the saimoe thread of almost 2 years ago not to call Stein's;Gate a romance anime. Despite having some romantic elements in it, it's not primarily (not even secondary or tertiary) a romance anime.

Originally Posted by cyth

You are because we're talking about it and you know exactly what I mean by it. It is a slang term after all. As a general descriptor, you're right, it does not work.

<sarcasm>
Of course i am feigning ignorance. Death note, Mirai Nikki , school days and code geass are obviously moe shows.
</sarcasm>
Are you pretending to be ignorant yourself for not seeing that these shows are obviously not primarily targeted to people who like "moe"?

Originally Posted by cyth

My point is you can use the word in this way and you don't need to deny its usage just because it doesn't fit your personal narrow definition. People use it to describe many things.

Hypocritically you are doing the same. You are denying the usage of moe of others in this very same post.

Originally Posted by cyth

In other words, this is not a discussion I'm willing to spend more time on, because you guys are too set in your way to even acknowledge something as basic as the concept of a moe element.

Originally Posted by cyth

There are clear cases of shows that have fallen in this genre because of the fandom recognizing them as such. In most cases, the label isn't even being used derogatorily, that is all in your head, guys.

I don't recall using the label "moe shows" negatively in any of my posts, unless you were answering someone else's post while quoting mine.

[cyth]

Originally Posted by hyl

Are you pretending to be ignorant yourself for not seeing that these shows are obviously not primarily targeted to people who like "moe"?

My reply didn't come out right. I was address you feigning ignorance for what you quoted.

As for the rest of your post, I see nothing other than nitpicking, misunderstandings, and things I already explained in detail in my previous posts. Forgive me for not wasting my time.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by cyth

In most cases, the label isn't even being used derogatorily, that is all in your head, guys.

It doesn't even matter if people use the term "derogatorily". People use the term wildly inconsistently to mean whatever they think or want. If you actually ask people to be more specific and say exactly what they're talking about (and avoid the term altogether), the conversation becomes much more clear. And to me, that should be the goal: adding clarity. Is anything at all clearer after having this conversation?

Originally Posted by cyth

As for the rest of your post, I see nothing other than nitpicking, misunderstandings, and things I already explained in detail in my previous posts. Forgive me for not wasting my time.

This whole thing has been a waste of everyone's time, because your whole attitude is "I know what it means, you know what it means, other people know what it means, and anyone who disagrees is just being stubborn and obtuse". Oh yeah, and "to understand that you have to read Azuma, ohohoho~". What a stellar contribution to constructive discussion among peers.

The fact is that you're doing exactly what I've been saying all along: making vague allusions to broad concepts, looping things into nebulous generalizations, and deliberately avoiding defining the boundaries. So we're no further ahead than we were before. Clearly, you don't have the magic answer either, despite your staggering arrogance and condescension to everyone else.


And this is exactly why this debate has been going on for years with no progress or resolution (despite the fact that some people think it's so damn obvious; "why can't every just admit I'm obviously right?").

Any other challengers want to come forward and claim to have "The Answer" this time? I'm waiting with bated breath.

[cyth]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

This whole thing has been a waste of everyone's time, because your whole attitude is "I know what it means, you know what it means, other people know what it means, and anyone who disagrees is just being stubborn and obtuse". Oh yeah, and "to understand that you have to read Azuma, ohohoho~". What a stellar contribution to constructive discussion among peers.

And your repeated stance of "look, it's a waste of time" has helped this discussion how? I'm not even sure whether you agree with the status quo. To me it seems like you want this discussion to be left alone, because that's the way you proliferate the narrow definition you're vying for. I don't agree with it because in reality the term is used loosely, and I've stated my reasons for being fine with that: because I'm tired of arguing for one true and concise definition as well. It cannot be done, but people can come to accept that. That's all I'm vying for here.


As for arrogance and condescension accusations, I'm sorry if I came across that way. I approach all discussions with an open mind, believe it or not. I just didn't take anything useful from this discussion so far, as I've been on your side of the argument once a long time ago.

[Triple_R]

This thread took off a bit faster than I had thought, so I'm unfortunately a fair bit behind now.


With that in mind, I'm going to make a few general observations as to why I think "moe" would be better off with a clearer and more expansive definition:

1. "Desire to protect" does a really bad job of even capturing moe as a "feeling", imo. Many of the most popular moe girls around (going by actual moe competitions like J-SaiMoe and ISML) are in narratives that don't put them in any significant danger. Why the heck would I feel a desire to protect one of the K-On girls? What exactly would I be protecting them from? Honestly, I view the "desire to protect" definition to be deeply flawed for just this reason. In my understanding of moe, Yui Hirasawa is very moe. But going by the "desire to protect" definition, she's not moe at all. She doesn't need protection!

2. There has been a rise in certain types of anime characters and shows in recent years. And these characters and shows are widely viewed as moe. Generally speaking, these types of characters and shows is what moe critics and haters are criticizing. They use the term "moe" to define it because these characters and shows are widely considered "moe". If you simply tell the moe critic and hater that s/he's using the term wrong, then that doesn't do anything to effectively defend the characters and shows that s/he's criticizing (either implicitly or explicitly). In fact, if anything, it'll usually come off as very evasive to the moe critic. Which, sad to say, will only reinforce negative stereotypes about moe and its fans in the minds of moe critics. As a moe fan myself, I don't want that.

3. The term "moe" is too popular to simply go away. And yet, if it's just some vaguely positive feeling, then its both nebulous and redundant (since there's no shortage of pre-existing English terms that can effectively capture a feeling). There's nothing that obfuscates discussion more than a widely used term that is both nebulous and redundant.

4. I think that our understanding of the anime industry becomes a bit clouded, much more than it needs to be, if we don't specify the term beyond a "feeling" definition. Shows like K-On, Lucky Star, iDOLM@STER, YuruYuri, and Love Live! all sold extremely well, and there are reasons for that. There's a certain commonality between these shows. And its a commonality that ties intricately into a broader understanding of "moe", imo. If we don't recognize that, then I think we miss much of what made KyoAni a commercial juggernaut, much of what has contributed to P.A. Works' success, and much of what drives the anime industry commercially.

5. I honestly think there's a real beauty to moe that gets lost if too much focus is put on "desire to protect". Love Live! and Saki click with me in a certain way that most other anime shows don't. And I do think it goes back to a broader understanding of "moe". If we could somehow capture this beauty in words, I think we could more effectively explain the appeal of moe to those who often criticize it. Words like "genki", "attractive", "colorful", "hopeful", "optimistic", "emotional truth", "life-affirming", "spirited", "determined", "caring", "fun-loving", and "altruistic" are all wrapped up in what I'm seeing and feeling here, but none of those words captures it all on its own. Perhaps "moe" captures it as well as any word can.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by cyth

...as I've been on your side of the argument once a long time ago.

I don't even know if you know what "my side of the argument" is to say that you've once been on "my side", but that notwithstanding...

Originally Posted by cyth

To me it seems like you want this discussion to be left alone, because that's the way you proliferate the narrow definition you're vying for.

I don't want a "narrow definition". I want people to stop pretending it has some sort of precise definition that's "clear and obvious", because then people will (hopefully) stop arguing about it. When it comes to classifying similar things, I think we need to use different, more precise terms. People have fought over the definition of "moe" for years with no agreement.

Originally Posted by cyth

I don't agree with it because in reality the term is used loosely, and I've stated my reasons for being fine with that: because I'm tired of arguing for one true and concise definition as well. It cannot be done, but people can come to accept that. That's all I'm vying for here.

But that's basically what I'm saying. So, I ask: why have you been arguing so extensively that your definition is the correct one? (It's like "there is no one definition, but you at least have to agree that it's like this". So there is a definition? )

[cyth]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

But that's basically what I'm saying. So, I ask: why have you been arguing so extensively that your definition is the correct one? (It's like "there is no one definition, but you at least have to agree that it's like this". So there is a definition? )

My "definition" is an umbrella of definitions, and I'm fine with it being that. That's why I like to think there's nothing wrong with taking more freedom to labeling shows and characters as moe if enough people agree to that, while you seem to require a concise definition for it before that can happen. This is where our opinions differ.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Syn advanced a particular criticism of a well known trend in anime characters. I happen to like said trend and felt the need to mount a counter, regardless of whether I agree with her that this trend represents "moe" as a whole.

I don't think she was intentionally rigging it either - though I will not she has yet to give a reason why I should adopt her definition of what moe is, rather than, say, Galbraiths's "rarified psuedo-love for a fictional character", which is much more consistent with what I think the feeling of moe is.

Which is something I'm just not convinced one should correlate sexism and moe just because they are occurring at the same time. I see these things throughout the medium and beyond-- for example; harem anime has been around for a much longer time. This is not to ignore the concept of gender relations and general homophobia that is present everywhere.

It's just not that simple, which is why I used the MD geist analogy-- cherry picking the worst of something can make any grouping look bad.

Though on the other hand, I don't really react violently to so called "weak" characters. It's not inherently sexist to create a female character that is weak and dependent on others and indeed anime has tons of both genders; it's when the story IMPOSES the idea that women must be weak, and be glorified consumables that it goes wrong. And I really can't feel a message of "stay pregnant and barefoot and in the kitchen" from any moe anime. If anything, so many of those cute girls doing cute things are actually female characters doing shit on their own without the need of men. And actually to the sexist, that would be threatening, just how people believe porn is impossible without a penis.

Also, empowering a woman can also be sexist (see 90s scantily clad "heroines"). Pretty much any anime that involves excessive female on male abuse is home to this.

One example that blurs the line is Tomoyo from Clannad. At first sight, her desire to be more "feminine" came across to me as pretty sexist, because enforcing gender roles on people is somewhat lame, especially when you want to turn a strong and independent woman to meld into something less threatening. But it also makes sense in context, as she always has to deal with the social expectations of those around her but in the end she always just felt more comfortable being herself so she comes across as a character with a strong and weak side. My favorite character is a tree hugging hipster, but I have no problem with that.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by cyth

My "definition" is an umbrella of definitions, and I'm fine with it being that. That's why I like to think there's nothing wrong with taking more freedom to labeling shows and characters as moe if enough people agree to that, while you seem to require a concise definition for it before that can happen. This is where our opinions differ.

People can label things however they'd like, but how useful is it? From this thread, 0utf0xZer0 identifies himself as a "moe fan" and he has a definition for what that means to him. And Triple_R also identifies himself as a "moe fan", and he has a definition for what that means to him too. I don't think their definitions are the same (though they may have some things in common). And then you have other people who claim to "hate moe", and they have their own definitions for what that is. These definitions are, too, not the same (though again they may have some things in common). If you follow the "umbrella of definitions" theory, then it's cool: all those definitions can co-exist under this giant blob of a term. It doesn't really describe any one thing except in the loosest of senses, but whatever. If someone wants to say "this is a moe anime", and can make a reasonable case, they may be right. Why bother arguing?

But there comes a point in time when, over the course of discussion, definitions clash and it becomes important to establish a framework for exactly what you mean. Or, in other words:

Originally Posted by Triple_R

There's nothing that obfuscates discussion more than a widely used term that is both nebulous and redundant.

But guess what: moe is already such a word. It has an "umbrella of definitions". As you said, "in reality the term is used loosely [...] I'm tired of arguing for one true and concise definition...".

Enter Triple_R's argument, which is precisely about establishing a "concise definition" for "moe". And my reaction: it's hopeless.

My advice from the get-go was that if you want to carve out a box of similar content and talk about it, it's better to use a different word and just ignore "moe" and all its diverse and divergent meanings, because otherwise people will just argue about the terminology. That doesn't mean that what you're talking about might not somehow be wrapped up in this giant "moe" catch-all, but it's too damn confusing and frustrating to deal with the baggage of everyone's preconceptions.

[synaesthetic]

I'm hardly telling anyone what the definition of "moe" should be.

I'm merely saying the term has joined the ranks of "awesome," "epic," "fail" and "ermagherd" in that it has been overused to the point of meaninglessness. Not to mention nobody can seem to agree on a single definition.

What is it, exactly? If you can't nail down a good definition then the term is useless for describing anything!

A word that means everything is just as useless as a word that means nothing.

I'm not here claiming that male anime fans are "tools of the patriarchy" or some other such radical feminist nonsense.

I'm sick of seeing characters who are given specific flaws and idiosyncrasies (and yes, they are usually negative traits) expressly for the purpose of eliciting the desire to protect said character by male viewers.

I'm sick of these flaws not being treated realistically. Think of one of the stereotypical "moe" tropes: the tsundere female character. How would a character like this, portrayed to this extreme, be treated in reality, by real, actual people?

I can guaran-damn-tee you it'll be nothing at all like how they're treated in "moe" media. It'll be much, much worse. That sort of behavior isn't just not tolerated in the real world, it might even be considered assault!

[hyl]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

What is it, exactly? If you can't nail down a good definition then the term is useless for describing anything!

A word that means everything is just as useless as a word that means nothing.

It doesn't mean everything, but there doesn't seem to be one definition for it.
For that problem i am going back to this post that was made earlier.

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

There doesn't need to be a single definition; you just need to know what definition you're using. ( ¬‿¬)

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm sick of seeing characters who are given specific flaws and idiosyncrasies (and yes, they are usually negative traits) expressly for the purpose of eliciting the desire to protect said character by male viewers.

I'm sick of these flaws not being treated realistically. Think of one of the stereotypical "moe" tropes: the tsundere female character. How would a character like this, portrayed to this extreme, be treated in reality, by real, actual people?

I can guaran-damn-tee you it'll be nothing at all like how they're treated in "moe" media. It'll be much, much worse. That sort of behavior isn't just not tolerated in the real world, it might even be considered assault!

And those flaws are exactly the reason why those character are appealing (or not) to people.
I don't think there is anything wrong with exaggerated and sometimes unrealistic characters in fiction. That's why it's a work of fiction.

In real life I don't expect to see orphan boys growing up into gritty crimefighters in silly costimes

[Akito Kinomoto]

I have no problem with the definition of moé encompassing art style, type of show, element of a show, type of character, element of a character, or a feeling so long as the user makes the context clear. What I do take issue with is mislabeling. True Tears has moé but it's not a moé anime, for example. Fist of the North Star has none of the moé aesthetic or literacy but it's possible to feel moé for the characters. Puella Magi Madoka Magica has all of the aesthetics but none of the literacy. Shows that have moé as an aesthetic and part of its literacy like K-On! can also be called slice-of-life if you wanted to avoid confusion.

Buuut what does slice-of-life mean?
/rimshot

[Jan-Poo]

This is a bit of topic but yeah, anime characters are not realistic, they are idealistic.
If it wasn't so people wouldn't say that 2D is better than 3D.

And that doesn't involve female character only nor male-oriented anime only. Hell shoujo manga are even worse in their depiction of "male characters", and don't let me get started on how realistic are the gay couples of BL.

Characters like the quartet of K-on or the ones from Hidamari Sketch which many people consider "moe" aren't realistic at all, and that's precisely why people like them.
I've even read somewhere the statement that "moe doesn't exist in 3D form", which I bet some people won't agree with, but it makes a good point on how anime characters aren't realistic.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

What I do take issue with is mislabeling. True Tears has moé but it's not a moé anime, for example. Fist of the North Star has none of the moé aesthetic or literacy but it's possible to feel moé for the characters. Puella Magi Madoka Magica has all of the aesthetics but none of the literacy. Shows that have moé as an aesthetic and part of its literacy like K-On! can also be called slice-of-life if you wanted to avoid confusion.

...somehow, it's not any clearer, despite all this. I'd say True Tears has both "moé aesthetics" and "moé literacy", but it's not a "moé anime"? Why? How is it all that different from Kanon, which is often called a "moé anime"? Or is it too not a "moé anime"? Because it's a romantic drama? Does a show require both "aesthetics" and "literacy" to be a "moé anime"? But why then is it less confusing to call K-On! "slice-of-life"? What's the distinction?

Down the endless path of drawing lines in the sand again, under the guise of stopping "mislabelling". But how do you even know if it's right or wrong, other than "this is what I think makes sense"? Are we going to have a vote to try to determine the "consensus"?

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

Buuut what does slice-of-life mean?
/rimshot

Oh god... they're dram-- don't even get me started...

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

...somehow, it's not any clearer, despite all this. I'd say True Tears has both "moé aesthetics" and "moé literacy", but it's not a "moé anime"? Why? How is it all that different from Kanon, which is often called a "moé anime"? Or is it too not a "moé anime"? Because it's a romantic drama? Does a show require both "aesthetics" and "literacy" to be a "moé anime"? But why then is it less confusing to call K-On! "slice-of-life"? What's the distinction?

Down the endless path of drawing lines in the sand again, under the guise of stopping "mislabelling". But how do you even know if it's right or wrong, other than "this is what I think makes sense"? Are we going to have a vote to try to determine the "consensus"?

...People consider Kanon (2006) to be a moé anime? I'm genuinely surprised. Anyway, using slice-of-life to describe K-On! allows for the word moé to stop being overused in the same sentence. In case someone doesn't want to clarify between different meanings of the same word, for example. Of course, simply saying what you mean instead of using moé in a certain context would be easier but the definition I provide is the diagnosis and not a solution. Fortunately I can act accordingly on the diagnosis most of the time (but saying it out-loud I know someone is going to try to set me up now).

But at least this topic cleared the misconception that there was no misconception. We're not any closer to a goal than we were in 2006 but at least we're honest about it now!