For my own future reference (and sanity): I, II, III, IV, V, VI
I: GAR depends primarily on the viewer, the term is subjective.
II: Among the nuances of GAR is “the sheer will to accomplish the impossible.”
III: GAR is about expression (i.e. MANLY TEARS). The relationship between GAR and moe is not precisely syncretic. A character can be the conduit for both values at different times, but they cannot exist simultaneously. IK uses Tamaki as an example. GAR positions the viewer as less powerful than the subject of GAR; moe positions the viewer as more powerful than the subject of moe. Revy’s nihilism prevents her from constituting GAR because GAR is predicated upon purpose, thus ” badass on its own is merely badass.” GAR is increasingly potent when displayed in women, typically a site of femininity.
IV: Akagi embodies inhuman and amoral GAR. Kaiji-esque moral and noble GAR are easily relatable.
V: “[GAR is humbling and unsettling.]” Moe inspires not emulation but mamoru-ism. Admiration isn’t connected to varieties of GAR, moral GAR, for instance.
VI: Vengeance is righteous but rarely virtuous. Incidental righteousness involves less the character than it does the environment. The wolf, sheepdog, sheep metaphor.
However…[these are musings, potentially for future discussion]
1. If GAR is about extroversion, then what about introverted tsundere GAR? Take Tsume, for instance. He is a case where introverted GAR is possible – when he acts a bit deredere and saves someone (Toboe) by exhibiting his strength. So we know that tsundere GAR is a simultaneous possibility as well as syncretic one. Really, it just boils down to the subjectivity of GAR as a viewer-based experience. Tsundere GAR would then appear to be simply a hybrid form.
2. I’m in disagreement that GAR needs purpose. I think that saying there is a prerequisite for GAR isn’t much different than saying what GAR really is, and we’ve said it’s a subjective experience. Take into consideration (1) Ergo Proxy, (2) Evangelion unit 1.0 yes, the actual mecha, (3) Gaara [delightful irony is delightful].
3. IKnight remarks that GAR stimulates emulation, but moe doesn’t. There are probably are people out there that attempt to emulate moe, but it’s probably a minority; the willingness to emulate lies in the subjective experience, once again, of the viewer.
4. The sheepdog metaphor is brilliant. It seems to describe the process of mamoru. One must wonder if the existence of the sheep is dependent upon the wolf, or the intrinsic and implicit threat of the wolf. In some cases, the wolf is reduced to an ethereal abstraction. For instance, Makoto’s impending “death”, wherein Yuuichi must protect her, but it is futile. This seems to be one of Key/Kyoani’s crucial devices. A more concrete example would be Geass where Xingke protects the Chinese loli princess. There, the wolf is concretized. These relationships suggest that mamoru-ism is a rather complex product of moe, thesis GAR and antithesis GAR. This can be seen in TTGL, where GAR Simon protects Nina (arguably moe but not in a purely conventional Mikan sense) from GAR anti-spiral.
5. GAR exhibited in females is tricky. My speculation is limited to GAR in females challenging our notions of the location of masculinity. One very interesting example is Blue in Wolf’s Rain – she’s actually a woman, a female wolf. You wouldn’t get that from the first 8 (or so) episodes of the anime. Also, consider this! – surely a female tsundere that generates mamoru over a shouta challenges our notions (canon?) of the site of gender.
6. My final remark is that GAR, moe and mamoru are all very complex experiences and traits that are enacted and realized only through the gross effect of an entire cast. In order to understand Simon’s GAR we must take into account Kamina’s GAR, Yoko’s GAR, Nina’s GAR and moe, Simon’s desire for mamoru, etc. I don’t think it’s something capable of reduction to a single site because these sites are always working with each other to generate relative perceptions of what things are.
←[95]
