History BrokenAesop / Literature

* HarryPotter: A point extensively driven by the books is unity and tolerance. Specifically, unity and tolerance between pure-blood wizards and half-bloods. It also has the bad guys planning to enslave muggles as an analogy to nazism. This would all be fine and dandy, if it weren't for the fact that wizards (even the good ones) are highly guilty of segregation by hiding themselves and their society from muggles and rejecting their culture (the reason they're still stuck with medieval technology is that they're still largely ignorant about modern technology and science due to their rejection of anything "muggle"), and the books never portray this behavior as being wrong. Okay, being fair, many wizards believe in muggles' rights, and some have interest in muggle culture, and they have a study called Muggle Studies dedicated to it. But in those cases, this is treated almost as if studying about an animal species and its behavior, and it's never done with the intention of integrating with muggles. Basically, defending muggle rights makes you the wizard equivalent a PETA member.

* HarryPotter: A point extensively driven by the books is unity and tolerance. Specifically, unity and tolerance between pure-blood wizards and half-bloods. It also has the bad guys planning to enslave muggles as an analogy to nazism. This would all be fine and dandy, if it weren't for the fact that wizards are highly guilty of segregation by hiding themselves and their society from muggles and rejecting their culture (the reason they're still stuck with medieval technology is that they're still largely ignorant about modern technology due to their rejection of anything "muggle"), and the books never portray this behavior and being wrong.

* In-universe example: In ''The Barsoom Project'', sequel to ''Dream Park'', a live-action adventure about Inuit mythology is re-staged as a "Fat Ripper", in which players are psychologically conditioned to overcome their eating disorders and other dependencies while completing their mission. This could've been a real coup for the Park's operators, if one of the game's challenges hadn't required them to ''smoke cigarettes'' as part of a magical ritual. So we're training Gamers to trade one unhealthy habit for another, are we?

* Tom Godwin's short story ''The Cold Equations'' attempts to tell AnAesop about the uncaring nature of the universe, and how even an innocent mistake can cost a life, with no fault but that of universal law. Unfortunately, the basic thrust is undercut because of the setup of the situation. The only protection to keep someone from walking onto a spaceship where stowaways meet certain death is a sign saying "UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL. KEEP OUT!" This is especially bad, because it's flat-out stated that stowaways have happened before -- indeed, the pilot of the ship has a ''gun'' and explicit orders to ''shoot them'' -- yet the entire situation is treated as the fault of nothing but the physical laws of the universe. Readers are left to wonder why the craft had absolutely zero margin for error when modern lifeboats and transport craft are capable of handling far more than their generally required loads.

* The aesop of "The Tortoise and The Hare" is "Slow And Steady Wins The Race". While "slow and steady" is certainly a good approach for a number of things, racing is ''not'' one of them even in the story. The tortoise did not win because he was going slow and steady. He clearly won because of the hare stopping to rest. The aesop can more accurately be described as "Don't Be Cocky." Or even more so "Whatever you do, do with all your might". As Lore Sjöberg put it, "Slow and steady wins the race if your opponent is narcoleptic".
** Most likely, the emphasis is on the ''steady'' part rather than the slowness. Obviously if you're going more slowly you won't win, unless your opponent is a lot less steady than you are (which is the case here).

* Creator/OrsonScottCard's ''Literature/{{Empire}}'' is about the dangers of divisiveness in American political discourse and the evils of extremism at both ends of the political spectrum. Fair enough. Unfortunately, it's fatally undermined by the fact that the heroes all unambiguously share "Red State values" whereas the villains are a bunch of [[StrawmanPolitical craven liberals.]] Er, if the message is that people of both political opinions should work together, you probably shouldn't have all the protagonists be on one side of the aisle, and all the villains on the other like that...
* ''The Fountainhead'' has the problem that Howard Roark gives a ''massive'' CharacterFilibuster about how collective action is evil and real men think and work alone. Howard Roark is an ''architect''. Working alone, all he can produce is wallpaper.

* In ''Literature/HowTheGrinchStoleChristmas'', a big problem with delivering an Aesop about valuing family and friends over material commodities, is that the Grinch didn't just steal the overpriced, over-hyped luxuries; he '' stole all their food''. If you truly value your friends and families, you will object to someone threatening to starve them to death, and in this case, arguably the appropriate solution is ''not'' to go on celebrating despite it; it's to apprehend the thief and recover your belongings, for the sake of everyone you care about.

** The other Ayn Rand doorstopper, AtlasShrugged, has essentially the same problem. The protagonist is not himself a research scientist or productive laborer of any kind, so he's even further from the actual creation of the product in question than Roark. In fact, given that he later has issues involving stock sales, he's not even the only owner of the company funding the research team. If not for collectively-enforced ideas of ownership, he'd have been some random bum-- he's essentially important only by exploiting a technicality/bug in capitalism to leech off the system.

* [[http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/topic/1741-the-anti-capitalist-message-of-rands-fountainhead/ Some readers]] believe that the pro-capitalism Creator/AynRand accidentally created an anti-capitalist novel in ''Literature/TheFountainhead''. The main antagonists are a private newspaper and boards of directors. The hero, architect Howard Roark, declines a lucrative offer that would require him to build a version of his skyscraper altered to fit widespread public taste. In other words, he refuses to SellOut by supplying what the consumers demand, which results in him losing a profitable business deal. This, critics claim, is the opposite of capitalism.
** ''The Fountainhead'' also has the problem that Howard Roark gives a ''massive'' CharacterFilibuster about how collective action is evil and real men think and work alone. Howard Roark is an ''architect''. Working alone, all he can produce is wallpaper.

* ''Naked Empire'', eighth book of the ''Literature/SwordOfTruth'' series spends a good chunk of time preaching that you have to work for things, and that knowledge doesn't just come to you when you need it. In the last pages of the book, Richard's dying of poison and the knowledge of how to make the antidote basically just shows up in his head. Another particularly obvious one is the repeated exhortation to live your own life and think for yourself - but if you don't think Richard is right you're wrong, probably evil, and are going to die.
** "Sometimes the greatest harm can come from the best intentions. [[ProtagonistCentredMorality Unless it's Richard]]."

* The aesop of "The Tortoise and The Hare" is "Slow And Steady Wins The Race". While "slow and steady" is certainly a good approach for a number of things, racing is ''not'' one of them even in the story. The tortoise did not win because he was going slow and steady. He clearly won because of the hare stopping to rest. The aesop can more accurately be described as "Don't Be Cocky." Or even more so "Whatever you do, do with all your might". As Lore Sjöberg put it, "Slow and steady wins the race if your opponent is narcoleptic".
** Most likely, the emphasis is on the ''steady'' part rather than the slowness. Obviously if you're going more slowly you won't win, unless your opponent is a lot less steady than you are (which is the case here).

* ''Race Against Time'' by PiersAnthony attempts AnAesop on how having a lot of different cultures is a good thing, but it gets broken by a moral on how you shouldn't mix romantically with other races.
* ''Literature/IWasATeenageFairy'', by Francesca Lia Block: tattooing your lover's name on your chest is stupid, especially if you fail to learn from it and do it twice more - but the fourth time is okay, because now it's ''really'' true love.
* Creator/OrsonScottCard's ''Literature/{{Empire}}'' is about the dangers of divisiveness in American political discourse and the evils of extremism at both ends of the political spectrum. Fair enough. Unfortunately, it's fatally undermined by the fact that the heroes all unambiguously share "Red State values" whereas the villains are a bunch of [[StrawmanPolitical craven liberals.]] Er, if the message is that people of both political opinions should work together, you probably shouldn't have all the protagonists be on one side of the aisle, and all the villains on the other like that...
* Racial prejudice is a recurring theme in ''Literature/TheIcewindDaleTrilogy'', ''Literature/TheDarkElfTrilogy'', and the ''Literature/LegacyOfTheDrowSeries'' by R.A. Salvatore. Drizzt Do'Urden is a ChaoticGood dark elf who rejects the ways of his otherwise AlwaysChaoticEvil people and goes to live among the "good" races. He is subjected to FantasticRacism, which would work better as an analogue to RealLife racism if ''every'' other dark elf in the series weren't evil (Jarlaxle Baenre is more mercenary than outright evil, though; his canonical alignment varies between NeutralEvil and ChaoticNeutral) and if drow society as a whole were portrayed as misunderstood by the "good" races. The racists are still right 99% of the time. If you replace dark elf with "Jew" or any other real-world minority in the second sentence of this example, you'll basically see why there might be UnfortunateImplications.

* ''Literature/WarriorCats'': When Firestar has to choose between reinstating his old deputy, Graystripe, or keeping Brambleclaw, [=StarClan=] tells Leafpool that Firestar should make his decision with his head, not his heart (oh so subtly hinting at Brambleclaw), completely ignoring all the times in the series characters have been told to listen to their heart or do what they feel is right. In fact, the whole reason Firestar chose Graystripe in the first place was because he was told to follow his heart.
* One of the lessons in Creator/DrSeuss' ''Daisy-Head Mayzie'' is "What good is money without all your friends?". Wait, friends? You mean those [[KidsAreCruel bratty children who taunted her]] in school about her daisy (which was ''every single one of them'', by the way. No one defended her!). And while the adults didn't torment her, they didn't exactly stick up for her either. Oh, but suddenly they all love her again once she's back to normal, so... yay for conformity? I think there's a reason Dr. Seuss didn't get this published initially.
* Bowman, Kestrel, and their friend Mumpo spend the first ''Literature/WindOnFire'' book learning that if they work together, they can make things happen and nothing can hurt them. In the book's two parallel plots, the twin's father convinces downtrodden people that they need to stand up and peacefully insist on being given their rights, and their mother makes her views heard and gets the town to listen to her and consider her ideas. Then... the MacGuffin shows up and makes it all better. Or at least makes them happy for the remainder of the book.
* In the ''Franchise/DisneyFairies'' book, "Beck Beyond the Sea," Beck shirks her duties to follow the Explorer Birds, using [[ForbiddenFruit special dust]] from [[DesignatedVillain Vidia]] in order to fly fast enough. Turns out that Vidia tricked Beck twice over, first by not giving her as much dust as promised, and second by using Beck's absence to pluck feathers from Mother Dove. At the end of the book, Vidia is punished for this, but Beck is not even reprimanded for leaving her post.

* There are quite a few broken aesops in [[Literature/{{Twilight}} The Twilight Saga]]:
** According to WordOfGod, the Bella/Edward/Jacob love triangle was intended to show Bella's choice in the matter of love, namely that she had the option of Jacob but chose Edward. The "love through choice" moral is shot to hell through most of the other couples though, particularly in the case of imprinted couples (the guy can't ''help'' but feel attracted to the girl and while the girl technically is able to refuse him, there is a ton of pressure not to). Especially egregious is the case of Jacob, who made a number of speeches about how imprinting is essentially the loss of free will and he hopes to never have it [[spoiler:and then finds himself happily imprinted on Renesmee, even though he absolutely hated her not five minutes prior.]]
*** Which kind of contradicts everything the author said about Jacob being an option since it's implied if not outright stated that Jacob's interest in Bella was apparently [[spoiler: only due to him being subconsciously drawn to her because he was meant to imprint on Renesmee in the first place.]]
** One aesop seems to be that a girl as plain and unassuming as Bella can find true love, but Bella's flaws fall mostly into the category of InformedFlaw, [[spoiler:and are almost entirely removed at the end of the series.]] Not to mention, though Bella is intended to be plain and unassuming, nearly every man she runs into falls for her and Edward himself states that most of the boys in the school find her attractive. Clearly, not so plain. Bella's depiction on the film does not help, either... However, maybe the intended Aesop here was that if you hold off on sex until you get married and then [[spoiler:die in childbirth,]] you will become a saint and absolutely perfect in every way.
** The Cullens are portrayed as saintly vampires who value human life and therefore maintain a "vegetarian" diet of animal blood. But they never once object to other vampires killing humans - the closest they ever come is politely asking some non-veggie vamps who are staying with them to go out of town to feed, which has little to do with protecting human life and more to do with not blowing their cover. When there's a huge murder spree going on in Seattle caused by a vampire army, the Cullens never lift a finger to help until they realize the vampires are coming for them.
*** And worse still, some of the deaths the Cullens cause are ''glorified'', the most obvious example being Rosalie murdering her fiance and his friends. This would otherwise be a pretty badass moment, if it weren't for the fact that Carlisle is supposed to be an absolute pillar of morality; if he's so moral, why did he stand by and allow his new adoptive daughter to murder humans, something he's so strongly against?
*** In the first novel Edward briefly mentions that before he went full "vegetarian" he was sort of a vigilante vampire superhero; he would make meals out of muggers and rapists when they were in the middle of attacking someone. This is presented as wrong because he's inevitably still killing, despite the fact he would also often be ''saving'' people who would have otherwise been murdered, assaulted, or raped. The option of remaining a vigilante and just not feeding on the criminals he captures is never even considered.
*** Also building on Carlisle's supposed status as a pillar of morality, the reason he saved Rosalie's life was he saw her lying raped and dying in the street and thought it would be a waste to let beauty such as hers go to waste. And then he tried to give her to Edward as a girlfriend.
* ''Naked Empire'', eighth book of the ''Literature/SwordOfTruth'' series spends a good chunk of time preaching that you have to work for things, and that knowledge doesn't just come to you when you need it. In the last pages of the book, Richard's dying of poison and the knowledge of how to make the antidote basically just shows up in his head. Another particularly obvious one is the repeated exhortation to live your own life and think for yourself - but if you don't think Richard is right you're wrong, probably evil, and are going to die.
** "Sometimes the greatest harm can come from the best intentions. [[ProtagonistCentredMorality Unless it's Richard]]."

* ''Literature/TheCandyShopWar'' has a pretty loud aesop, to the extent that John even states it, after having written it out for everyone in chalk. '''DON'T TAKE CANDY FROM STRANGERS!''' Great, but the kids ''don't'' take candy from random creeps on the side of the road. They get candy from a woman who owns a candy shop and a man who runs an icecream truck, having either paid for them or worked to earn them.

* The book ''Lady in Waiting'' states first that a single woman was encouraged to pursue a doctorate, and that the spirit-filled woman is interesting and has goals for herself. But later it says that seeking fulfillment through a career is wrong and that a single woman should only seek fulfillment in serving God in whatever way, method, location, and time God wants.
* In the [[Literature/TheRiftwarCycle Riftwar saga]] we get hammered about how the end doesn't justify the means, and that evil actions are irrational, by the heroes. Then they start torturing enemies, in full knowledge of this being evil, in the name of the greater good.

* John Wyndham novel ''Literature/TheChrysalids'' initially has quite a powerful message against racism and xenophobia, being set in a backwards, post-apocalyptic theocracy in which mutants are brutally murdered for blaspheming against the likeness of God. Too bad the apparent message is fatally undermined in the last ten pages or so by having an airship full of technologically advanced mutants to rescue the heroes by cheerfully massacring all of the primitive people surrounding them while talking about how it is moral and good for inferior races to be killed by their superiors.
* In-universe example: In ''The Barsoom Project'', sequel to ''Dream Park'', a live-action adventure about Inuit mythology is re-staged as a "Fat Ripper", in which players are psychologically conditioned to overcome their eating disorders and other dependencies while completing their mission. This could've been a real coup for the Park's operators, if one of the game's challenges hadn't required them to ''smoke cigarettes'' as part of a magical ritual. So we're training Gamers to trade one unhealthy habit for another, are we?
* [[http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/topic/1741-the-anti-capitalist-message-of-rands-fountainhead/ Some readers]] believe that the pro-capitalism Creator/AynRand accidentally created an anti-capitalist novel in ''Literature/TheFountainhead''. The main antagonists are a private newspaper and boards of directors. The hero, architect Howard Roark, declines a lucrative offer that would require him to build a version of his skyscraper altered to fit widespread public taste. In other words, he refuses to SellOut by supplying what the consumers demand, which results in him losing a profitable business deal. This, critics claim, is the opposite of capitalism.
** ''The Fountainhead'' also has the problem that Howard Roark gives a ''massive'' CharacterFilibuster about how collective action is evil and real men think and work alone. Howard Roark is an ''architect''. Working alone, all he can produce is wallpaper.
** The other Ayn Rand doorstopper, AtlasShrugged, has essentially the same problem. The protagonist is not himself a research scientist or productive laborer of any kind, so he's even further from the actual creation of the product in question than Roark. In fact, given that he later has issues involving stock sales, he's not even the only owner of the company funding the research team. If not for collectively-enforced ideas of ownership, he'd have been some random bum-- he's essentially important only by exploiting a technicality/bug in capitalism to leech off the system.
* ''Literature/ThePoisonwoodBible'': The author goes to [[{{Anvilicious}} very great lengths]] to show that judging people without trying to understand where they're coming from is bad... but then paints all Americans as greedy, materialistic pigs, except for her {{Author Avatar}}s. Needless to say, it does little for the message of tolerance.
** The ending of the book in general is pretty bad about this. For the first 200 pages, both Americans and Africans are portrayed as having flaws and strengths... and then the author decides to make Americans the AlwaysChaoticEvil described above and paints Africans as saints who only ever do anything bad because they were corrupted by white people.
* ''Literature/SaveThePearls'' is a [[{{Understatement}} somewhat controversial]] novel that is -- ''ostensibly'' -- a fable about the foolishness of racism, set in a world where [[PersecutionFlip an environmental catastrophe has left melanin content as a prized thing, with blacks on top and whites on the bottom, with an interracial romance to drive home the point]]. What it ''is'', however, is a novel where white people are called "Pearls" and blacks are called "Coals," the white female lead starts off severely uncomfortable around black people (to the point of using slurs like "haughty Coal" in inner monologue), white people often wear blackface to "pass," the white lead is threatened with rape at the hands of a giant black man, and the love story is described as a "Beauty and the Beast" fable (and the black love interest literally ''turns into a beast'' thanks to genetic engineering).
* According to ''Literature/TheHost'' free will is more important than a utopia, and living parasitically in a host body is immoral. [[spoiler:Which is why Wanderer gets moved against her express wishes into a different host body, ruining another alien's happy life in the process.]]
* Pointed out in-universe in ''[[Literature/ScienceFiction101 No Woman Born]]''. Maltzer, a scientist who transferred the brain of the deceased actress Deirdre into a robot body, remembers the story of ''{{Literature/Frankenstein}}'' and is certain [[CyberneticsEatYourSoul Deirdre will eventually go wrong]]. When he tells this to Deirdre, she points out that he didn't create her, he only gave her a new body.
** While not pointed out, also of note is that Dr. Frankenstein's creation went wrong because he mistreated it. Had he been kinder to it, it would have not rebelled.
* In ''Literature/HowTheGrinchStoleChristmas'', a big problem with delivering an Aesop about valuing family and friends over material commodities, is that the Grinch didn't just steal the overpriced, over-hyped luxuries; he '' stole all their food''. If you truly value your friends and families, you will object to someone threatening to starve them to death, and in this case, arguably the appropriate solution is ''not'' to go on celebrating despite it; it's to apprehend the thief and recover your belongings, for the sake of everyone you care about.
* The Dutch book ''The Chatroom Trap'' tries to convey the Aesop that Chatrooms are dangerous place for underage users, by having Floor and Marcia, two 15 years old girls, doing a lot of dumb things in chatroom, culminating in Marcia posing naked for various persons. The catch is, all of this has no negative consequences whatsoever (even Marcia's naked photos are kept in private). Instead, the reason the girls are targeted by the criminals (which leads to them being molested) is that they post their profile on a (legit) site for aspiring models, with the entire baiting process happening via E-Mails.

* ''Franchise/StarWars'' ''YoungJediKnights'': Tenel Ka makes it a habit of relying as much as possible on her own physical abilities, relying on weapons or The Force only as a last resort (which kind of makes one wonder why the hell she wants to be a Jedi to begin with.) In the series' 4th book, "Lightsabers" emphasis is placed on her reminding herself of this while constructing her lightsaber, so she doesn't put enough care into constructing it, [[spoiler:resulting in her losing her arm in a lightsaber training accident]]. Afterwards, she feels ashamed that she let her pride cloud her judgment. Good lesson. Except her actions afterward don't show ''any'' regret. If she regretted it, it'd make sense for her to make at least a few minor exceptions to her code of honor and realize that sometimes [[CombatPragmatist you have to be realistic when it comes battle]] and use those so called "[[TryingToCatchMeFightingDirty not as honorable tactics]]". Instead, what does she do afterwards? Not only in the same book but just several hours later? [[spoiler:Refuses to wear a synthetic arm replacement]]. Why? Because ''she thinks it's dishonorable.'' [[AesopAmnesia And the story clearly treats this as the right decision]]. Face? [[FacePalm Meet palm]].
** She chose not to wear the replacement as a way to remind her of what her overconfidence had cost her.

* ''Save the Pearls'' is a [[{{Understatement}} somewhat controversial]] novel that is -- ''ostensibly'' -- a fable about the foolishness of racism, set in a world where [[PersecutionFlip an environmental catastrophe has left melanin content as a prized thing, with blacks on top and whites on the bottom, with an interracial romance to drive home the point]]. What it ''is'', however, is a novel where white people are called "Pearls" and blacks are called "Coals," the white female lead starts off severely uncomfortable around black people (to the point of using slurs like "haughty Coal" in inner monologue), white people often wear blackface to "pass," the white lead is threatened with rape at the hands of a giant black man, and the love story is described as a "Beauty and the Beast" fable (and the black love interest literally ''turns into a beast'' thanks to genetic engineering).

* The Dutch book ''The Chatroom Trap'' tries to convey the Aesop that Chatrooms are dangerous place for underage users, by having Floor and Marcia , two 15 years old girls, doing a lot of dumb things in chatroom, culminating in Marcia posing naked for various persons. The catch is, all of this has no negative consequences whatsoever (even Marcia's naked photos are kept in ptrivate). Instead, the reason the girls are targeted by the criminals (which leads to them being molested) is that they post their profile on a (legit) site for aspising models, with the entire baiting process happening via E-Mails.

* ''Literature/ThePoisonwoodBible'': The author goes to [[{{Anvilicious}} very great lengths]] to show that judging people without without trying to understand where they're coming from is bad... but then paints all Americans as greedy, materialistic pigs, except for her {{Author Avatar}}s. Needless to say, it does little for the message of tolerance.

* In the [[Literature/TheRiftwarCycle Riftwar saga]] we get hammered about how the end doesnt justify the means, and that evil actions are irrational, by the heroes. Then they start torturing enemies, in full knowledge of this being evil, in the name of the greater good.

* ''Franchise/StarWars'' ''YoungJediKnights'': Tenal Ka makes it a habit of relying as much as possible on her own physical abilities, relying on weapons or The Force only as a last resort (which kind of makes one wonder why the hell she wants to be a Jedi to begin with.) In the series' 4th book, "Lightsabers" emphasis is placed on her reminding herself of this while constructing her lightsaber, so she doesn't put enough care into constructing it, [[spoiler:resulting in her losing her arm in a lightsaber training accident]]. Afterwards, she feels ashamed that she let her pride cloud her judgment. Good lesson. Except her actions afterward don't show ''any'' regret. If she regretted it, it'd make sense for her to make at least a few minor exceptions to her code of honor and realize that sometimes [[CombatPragmatist you have to be realistic when it comes battle]] and use those so called "[[TryingToCatchMeFightingDirty not as honorable tactics]]". Instead, what does she do afterwards? Not only in the same book but just several hours later? [[spoiler:Refuses to wear a synthetic arm replacement]]. Why? Because ''she thinks it's dishonorable.'' [[AesopAmnesia And the story clearly treats this as the right decision]]. Face? [[FacePalm Meet palm]].

* While on the subject of Creator/DrSeuss, some people feel that the Aesop of ''Literature/HowTheGrinchStoleChristmas'' would be stronger if it were actually a true story. The intended point is to show that people should value getting together with family and friends over getting the latest hot item, but that Aesop is delivered by suggesting that they ''already do''. Based upon the SeriousBusiness Christmas materialism has been made into, it's very doubtful that they'd actually react the same way they did in Seuss's story--and furthermore, if they already placed a much higher priority upon family and friends than material commodities, then why was the Grinch so convinced otherwise?
** The [[Film/HowTheGrinchStoleChristmas live-action film adaptation]] attempts to strengthen the Aesop by making the Grinch the victim of [[FantasticRacism prejudice]], and making the Whos a society who mostly value materialism, other than the one person who actually has sympathy for the Grinch. The nonchalant reaction to being robbed only comes once she reminds them about the true meaning of Christmas. This would be all well and good--except a huge merchandising blitz surrounded the movie.
** Another big problem (in either version) with delivering an Aesop about valuing family and friends over material commodities, is that the Grinch didn't just steal the overpriced, over-hyped luxuries; he ''[[MoralEventHorizon stole all their food]]''. If you truly value your friends and families, you will object to someone threatening to starve them to death, and in this case, arguably the appropriate solution is ''not'' to go on celebrating despite it; it's to apprehend the thief and recover your belongings, for the sake of everyone you care about.

* The aesop of "The Tortoise and The Hare" is "Slow And Steady Wins The Race". While "slow and steady" is certainly a good approach for a number of things, racing is ''not'' one of them even in the story. The tortoise did not win because he was going slow and steady. He clearly won because of the hare stopping to rest. The aesop can more accurately be described as "Don't Be Cocky." Or even moreso "Whatever you do, do with all your might". As Lore Sjöberg put it, "Slow and steady wins the race if your opponent is narcoleptic".

** The [[Film/HowTheGrinchStoleChristmas live-action film adaptation]] attempts to strengthen the Aesop by making the Grinch the victim of [[FantasticRacism prejudice]], and making the Whos a society who mostly value materialism, other than the one person who actually has sympathy for the Grinch. The nonchallant reaction to being robbed only comes once she reminds them about the true meaning of Christmas. This would be all well and good--except a huge merchandising blitz surrounded the movie.

* One of the messages of ''Literature/TheHungerGames'' is that we shouldn't glorify violence. But the career tributes willingly volunteer for the games and enjoy killing the other tributes, making it very hard for the reader to feel sorry for them.

*** Which kind of contradicts everything the author said about Jacob being an option since it's implied if not outright stated that Jacob's interest in Bella was apparently [[spoiler: only due to him being subconsciously drawn to her because he was meant to imprint on Renesmee.]]