Waiwai dropped a bomb on Friday with the English translation of a moe-bashing (among other things) interview with Mimei Sakamoto. ANN picked the story up on Sunday, it was posted to comments here yesterday, and now HD takes a crack at separating fiction from fact.
First off: go read the interview. It’s not really an interview, reading more like a journalist’s notes of an extended monologue (what questions, if any, were asked to prompt Sakamoto’s statements?), and comes across as some of the more extravagantly yellow writing I’ve seen in awhile. Before moving on to critique the meat of the article itself though, a bit of character assassination:
According to dormcat’s posts in the related ANN thread, Sakamoto’s background arguably does not help her credibility in discussions of this issue. I won’t repeat those allegations here, but do feel compelled to note that a certain style of Japanese journalism, much like its advertising, inserts unsubstantiated claims (“super popular!” “a must-read for all hip young Japanese!” “one of Japan’s most prominent women manga artists!”) to inflate the hype behind a particular story or product. This is usually done most stridently when the subject is the least well-known, and while ANN’s encyclopedia has its faults, the fact that “one of Japan’s most prominent women manga artists” didn’t have an entry in their database prior to the publication of this article doesn’t help her claim. Given her background and relative insignificance it is tempting to dismiss her position out of hand as publicity-hungry raving, but that would deny us the satisfaction of a more thorough examination of the article’s claims.
Without futher ado then, into the breach, my lads!
Claim #1: Geek culture has moved into the mainstream courtesy of the business of “moe.”
False. Reversed, this claim is closer to the truth: moe culture has moved into the Japanese mainstream courtesy of the business of geekery – that is, the recent development of a Japanese form of commodified “geek chic”. A-boys, the wave of Akibaphiles spawned by the increased attention the district has had in mainstream media over the past year or so, are hardly examples of “geek culture moving into the mainstream”. Instead, they’re the mainstream appropriating trappings of geek culture.
Phrased as it is currently, the article sets up “moe” as a malignant invasive force that is taking “the mainstream” by storm through its capitalist wiles. While the market for such goods has undeniably been growing over the past several years, to claim that it has progressed beyond a niche is a laughable assertion – if anything its recent public exposure has elevated it from obscurity to the level of “fetish kitsch”, adding maid cafes to the list of other wacky theme restaurants in Tokyo.
Claim #2: “Moe” … describes the warm feeling the otaku get when they see something they like.
True. This is the broader slang connotation the term has come to attain. However, if this is the operating definition through the article, equating moe with pedophilia becomes incoherent – train moe, car moe, skyscraper moe, etc. are all admissible as evidence, not to mention the adoption of the term by non-otaku women (to ends that are still under investigation, but certainly have nothing to do with young girls). Semantics, people!
Claim #3: People who mimic Densha Otoko in the hopes of landing a beautiful girlfriend are probably barking up the wrong tree.
True, most likely. But what does this have to do with moe (by any definition)?
Claim #4: Fans of moe are pedophiles, or repulsive perverts at the least.
False. This claim replaces the initially established definition of “moe” in the article with one that reads as equivalent to what has colloquially come to be known in English as “lolikon,” i.e. drawn child pornography. Whether the consumption of drawn child porn leads to sexual abuse of real children or not is the topic for an entirely different debate, but I do wish the author wouldn’t play so fast and loose with the “moe” moniker. “Moe” is either the harmless and increasingly ubiquitous slang for “warm feeling” that the article describes, or it is something much more complex, of which drawn child porn is only a small part. Once again: semantics, please. Please?
Claim #5: Otaku are perpetual criminals, have entered the mainstream, and started an otaku boom.
False. Sakamoto is ascribing a whole lot of power to individuals who she later says “would never go out and about in the world because they wouldn’t believe anything good could happen to them if they did so, anyway.” Is moe a cancer spread through cell phones that leet otaku hackers have invaded from the privacy of their bedrooms and/or parents’ basements, or is Sakamoto putting the cart before the horse again?
The recent otaku boom was sparked not by the otaku wave but by a couple of good storytellers, sustained by a background referent of iconography (Evangelion pachinko, anyone?), and promoted by savvy marketers and pop-culture spinners as the new hotness. The question underlying the fad’s longevity is the extent to which the background referent has permeated and become normalized in the public consciousness; once it becomes uncool to acknowledge the symbols they’ll fade away into marginality once again, where the “real otaku” have lurked all along.
Claim #6: People incapable of recognizing reality and being in normal loving relationships have been labeled as otaku, and are not real geeks.
False? She also seems to imply that because they have been labeled as such, we are therefore going through an otaku boom. This passage is one of the more glaring cesspools of undefined buzzwords that plague the article; she seems to be simultaneously using otaku as an umbrella category and dividing it into the “real otaku” and recently-minted “so-called otaku”, implying that the newer ones are more depraved and antisocial than their predecessors. I’m having trouble parsing her argument beyond this point, but a clear definition of otaku would help. A lot.
Claim #7: The otaku market paragraph.
True. This is spot on, an island of clarity in an otherwise incomprehensible rant. It also has nothing to do with the rest of her anti-moe thesis and is equally applicable to any sort of hobby or “boutique” consumption market. Instead of the same old platitudes, Sakamoto, how about a stab at a solution? According to your resume you’re just as invested in the success of this market as any of us.
Claim #8: I’m a fully-fledged otaku.
Does not compute. Provide a definition that sticks and we can make a judgement here.
As translated here by Waiwai this article reads as a pathetic and hysterical attempt to stir up controversy regarding a concept Sakamoto obviously does not understand but has become something of a cause celebre. The issues it raises are real: no matter what terminology is used to describe them, there is a growing underclass of antisocial parasite Japanese who are disconnected from the realities of everyday life and pragmatic concerns of promoting their own welfare. To say that otakuism is the cause of this phenomenon is grossly irresponsible, however, and presents a symptom of Japan’s social malaise as it root instead of merely a manifestation of broader and more troubling trends.
In summary: Sakamoto makes two sets of contradictory claims in this piece. First, that otaku are entering the cultural mainstream and are simultaneously antisocial recluses. Second, that “moe” is a warm feeling, and simultaneously is a form of pedophilia. The reality is far more complex: the otaku “industry” is by and large composed of individuals who don’t fit the repulsive mold she paints (or the Densha Otoko mold either), and “moe” is no more pedophilia than collecting pictures of dogs is bestiality.
There are deep social issues that arise when confronted with the prospect of a moe-obsessed society. I’m pretty sure moe and Kant’s categorical imperative wouldn’t get along too well… but claiming that an immoderate cultural fixation on “moe” – assuming such a fixation exists – is anything other than an outcropping of the equally complex social malaise currently gripping Japan is just silly.
Actually.. from speaking with an otaku insider in Japan I learned that a lof of otaku has the impression that all women are kogal sluts and are deathly afraid of them. And frankly, the otaku in Japan ARE bottom feeders… traumatized bottom feeders. Not a good combination.
As a result they seek the direct opposite of that: lolis.
And a considerable number of otaku are also hikkomori
Hay man I did not have so much fun reeding an article.. Journal in a long time. Since I am in a little island called Tasmania, I am a bit behind the groove, the article posted was quite fun. But in the close future I would like to see a couple more posts, and the set up of the Japanese sight as well.
>>T_I
I agree with you wholeheartedly – the otaku in Japan are traumatized bottom feeders. By a certain definition of the term. What I’m saying is that Sakamoto can’t have it both ways: they’re either traumatized bottom feeders who live in their parents’ basements deathly afraid of social contact, or they’re savvy culture brokers actively spreading their influence through “mainstream society” – she needs to pick a side of the fence to sit on, or fully articulate a more nuanced position somewhere in between, which is where I would tend to fall (at least if I were forced to apply the same umbrella term to all possibly applicable groups).
>>kaishi akazawa
Glad you enjoyed… I’m a bit confused as to what you’re asking for in future posts, though. Could you explain more fully? I’ll try to provide what information I can.
ã‚ã£ã€ãƒ–ãƒã‚°ã®æ—¥æœ¬èªžç‰ˆã§ã™ã (汗)。ã„ã¤ã‹æ—©ã作るã¤ã‚‚りã§ã™ã€æœ¬å½“ã«â€¦
Shingo: I believe I have fired my boradsides.
I firmly believe she’s like that Jack Thompson feller.
[BAD WORD], as if one Jack Thompson wasn’t enough. Wait, Jack and this [BAD WORD] should meet. AND FALL IN LOVE AND HAVE BABIES. AND THEN GET RUN OVER BY A TANK. TWICE. IN A CIVILIAN NEIGHBOURHOOD ROAD.
Hey Shingo,
I’ve been reading HD for awhile now, and have been enjoying it a lot. It’s a great resource, and I refer to your moe analysis frequently. I’m finally writing in to say thanks for the detailed and piece-by-piece breakdown of the WaiWai article. If you’re interested, I have my own analysis here:
http://www.cjas.org/~leng/lainspotting/2006/05/different-perspective-on-japans-otaku.html
We focused on a few different details, but I think our perspectives have a lot in common, overall.
Anyhow, keep up the great work. I’d love to see more of your commentary on the otaku scene in Japan.
Jason was talking about this article as well, and i really think she’s just using this opportunity as a publicity stunt.
Otaku don’t eat another Otaku up. She’s breaking the creed! lol.
I would have to agree with Tsubaki and a couple of your points Shingo. This is nothing but a publicity stunt evoking the worst parts of yellow journalism and and someone wanting to make a name for themselves by trashing a area of the industry they see as a ripe target . . . .
[…] It would be beneficial to then read Shingo’s comments, as he does a excellent job detailing the shortcomings of Mimei Sakamoto’s take on otaku culture. As for my thoughts, well… there’s a reason I’ve started and aborted this post several times thus far. While I agree Sakamoto’s screed is a troll at heart, I think her general criticism of “moe” and its negative impact on otaku culture in Japan is on target. […]
The article raises a couple of interesting points, but also shows a lack of understanding of otaku culture. More than anything, I am concerned about what Sakamoto considers to be a `true’ otaku. All I read there was `hikikamori’, not `otaku’. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but the line between them is not drawn in that article. The suggestion that all `true’ otaku should “go back and shut yourselves off from the world again” is rather dangerous. Clearly she lacks a personal understanding of how that screws with you psychologically. I would not recommend it to anyone, as I can confirm that you will never fully recover from the harm it causes.
[…] At the risk of duplicating responses and posts, I bring you my own desultory ramble on media addiction. Not otakuism, but anime-watching and escapism in general, as causes of a possible social problem. This isn’t exactly a response to Jeff’s response to Shingo’s response to self-proclaimed otaku Sakamoto, but more of a post that sprang out of a would-be comment over at Jeff’s place. But the comment got a little out of hand and developed a little too broadly, and well. You know how that goes. […]
The real surprise is that anyone is giving Mainichi news articles any credibility in the first place. Instead of targeting her criticisms as translated and cut into a news article, one immediately has to wonder what the original article said. Take what Mainichi says with an appropriate grain of salt. The larger context of the interview should be read in its original language before attacking her on her snippets of text.
I’m not saying what she says is right or wrong … just saying … It’s MAINICHI, people.
[…] Self-professed ‘moerer’ rips into ‘real otaku’ fetish fakers – Heisei DemocracyA thorough dissection concerning the issue. Proving claims as stated in the article is a specialty in this one. Posted in Anime, Articles || […]
wow, seems like that manga artist is pissed for whatever reason. i don’t think lashing out is such a good thing to do, especially when she’s simply ranting about a small segment of the otaku population who are “perverts”. i don’t consider myself an otaku so i don’t really understand her argument.