In defense of Akamatsu, I must say that he has put his “moe theory” to the test in Negima ch. 122-125, the Ako story arc (in which it functions in a most magnificent manner), and that his definition at least covers otome-kei as well as junai-kei.

The Ako arc embodies most of Akamatsu’s moe theory:

- It is practically 100% nonsexual. (Notice how, even in the scene where her bare back is shown, it is done so in such a way as to arouse concern and sympathy rather than sexual desire)

- During this arc, Negi (with whom, one assumes, the reader is expected to identify) is his “adult self” and so is in a dominant/authoritative position – this is no coincidence.

- There is virtually no possibility of further development, due to Negi’s returning to child-form – hence Ako’s memory will remain untainted (in an idealistic sense) – hence affirming the present situation.

- It is noteworthy that Akamatsu very deliberately divorces this from the loli/denpa archetype. Yes, Ako is underage, but her “state of being” is completely different from that of the standard moetic-loli character or the denpa-type character (despite minor trappings of nurseness which don’t show up in this arc). One could conceivably transplant her personality, attributes, &c. to a character 10 years older without an obvious disjunction.

- It is also noteworthy that the character of Ako was given very little “screen time” before this arc. This supports the idea that the Ako arc was intended as an experiment in concretizing Akamatsu’s theory of moetics.

As for the otome-kei aspect of the definition, one has to note that throughout Akamatsu’s definition there is no mention of male *characters*, only a male viewer. I think it is possible for a male viewer to identify with a dominant female character in the case of yuri (e.g. Marimite), or to conceptually place himself in the situation depicted, not as a predator but as a nurturer. The reverse would be true for female-to-male moe, which could potentially account for the volume of non-erotic BL material.

In the final analysis, it might serve better to categorize moe by potential aspects of the moerer (can we find a more elegant word for that?)’s emotion than by situation. Nurture covers more than jun’ai; it extends into otome and denpa territory as well. Eros stands by itself. Admiration, despite protestations to the contrary, can also be part and parcel of moe, as with certain classes of tsundere or other “powerful” characters (Konpaku Youmu esp. in the Western Touhou fandom, Subaru Ryoko, Ruri-Ruri, any of Akamatsu’s Shinmeiryuu swordswomen, etc), and often is conflated with implicit contradiction (between innocent appearance/behaviour/personality and mythopoeic levels of power/intelligence/etc). Memetics (the denpa phenomenon – or should we call it “mimi-tics”?) or symbology is another aspect of moe which is difficult to nail down, although the canonical example would be “Mecha Musume”.

However, I note that you assume a universally male viewer and point of view. Have you thought about the female consumer of these images? And conversely, about female producers (and possibly parodic producers) of these images such as Takano and Aoshima?

I’d love to discuss this topic.

By the way, is that your art on your blog? Sweet stuff, the perspective is devilishly tricky.

I’d love the chance to answer some of your points and clarify a few of my thoughts. I’m going to link to your article directly from my site after I’ve gathered a few of my older contextual thoughts on moe from the past. Regardless, if you’d point me at the appropriate forum and or thread to continue in I’d love to jump right in, especially since I’ve also had some thoughts regarding the self-unaware aspects of moe which I’d like to hear your thoughts on.

天魁☆, let me thank you for your original article. Stories are the way in which our minds understand reality. What could be more worthwhile than trying to understand stories and images which result in such strong emotion. Shakespere and Dickens were pop entertainment in their day, and their less acomplished contemporaries are also worth serious study!

Your English is far better than my Japanese, so please pardon me for replying in English.

The first point you mention is true. While I try to suggest at times that the moerer plays an active role in taking his own meaning from a moe image (with such lines as “the moe artist is transparent, letting abstract brush strokes form meaning in the mind of each individual viewer”), I think I may push too hard on the idea that there is only one moe referent shared by all moerers.

My point in stressing this is not that each moerer percieves moe in exactly the same way; but rather that there are limits to the “uncertainty principle” that you suggest. I think that when one goes too far afield of certain accepted ideas of moe, it ceases to be moe and becomes something else (like “cute”, for example). However, by my suggestion that a moerer MUST react with a certain emotion to a certain type of moe I think I am going too far; those are just general observations on my part and should not have been stated as fact.

I was not aware of the origins of “Poetry for you”, but now that you mention it I have even more respect for your work. The parallel you draw between post-WWII poetry and current moe could probably be the subject of an article even longer than this one (;;). Despite your original intentions I think your piece has become one of the founding works on moe in the English language, and if you ever have the time to update or revise it I think many people would be interested to hear your new ideas. I know I would.

Regarding “anguish” over moe, I think there is a fine line between being apologetic or defensive and actually trying to understand something by lending it serious thought (that it may or may not deserve). I think popular culture is a fascinating subject that is often ignored, and while it may not be deeply intellectual I think the study of entertainment can tell us a lot about who we are as people. That’s my justification for my academic interest in moe, at least.

On your last point: you’re right, “don’t take it so seriously” is the proper form of the sentence. I can’t criticize your English at all, though – aside from a few spelling mistakes it could nearly pass as native. You remind me that I still have a long, long way to go with my Japanese.

Thanks again for replying! I’m very happy you took the time to read my piece (although it is way too long;;). I would welcome the chance to continue discussion of moe in the future.

Let me say several things.

but it seems me you miss one important point. That is, moe cannot work out without moerer.
Several people have pointed out that moe is just like quantam physics. The narrative that moe characters have can change according to observers, or in this case, moerers. This is because these fictitious characters inevitably have contingency, since no author can give his/her characters complete information. (i.e. What moe characters are doing or thinking while they are not appear on the page or screen?) Moerers supplement this lack by their imagination to make up a ideal character for them. Therefore, conflicts sometimes occur between Otakus, reagarding their moe characters when they supplement that lack in different way.
I would like to call this “uncertainty principle　of moe”

One more thing. 3 years ago, I wrote “Moetry for you” as a kind of parody of “Poetry for you” (though I did not mention this in the article) You may or may not know, “Poetry for you” is written by a English poet during the WW2, when poem was looked down on. “Now, moe is also looked down on by the society. So what if I praised moe in just the same way “Poetry for you” lauds poem? Can it sound plausible?” That was why I started writing this, partly as a practice of English. Yes, “Moetry” is coined from “poetry”.
Three years later, my view of moe has changed. I now think it is nonsense to anguish over moe: This is nothing more than an entertainment, right? But its content seems reasonable as it is still read by English people, which I did not really anticipate.

By the way, shouldn’t “Don’t take it so serious” be ” Don’t take it so seriously”?
I’m enbarrassed. orz
Should I have time and inclination, I will re-write this.

I would be very happy if you’d say “your English have much imporved.”