many examples don't seem appropriate: Family Unfriendly Aesop

There are people who would say lying to save someone's life wasn't permissible. With that example, it's probably true that more people would say it is permissible than wouldn't. But we can't prove that, and lack of proof would mean arguments over murkier examples.

edited 27th Apr '11 9:45:20 AM by halfmillennium

Not necessarily. Most objective tropes don't have direct proof that they happen, they are simple agreed on by enough people to sound objective.

It's possible that someone, somewhere, has a crazy "LYING IS THE WORST SIN EVER!" morality, but that is so detached from the mainstream perception of morality, that it would have no practical effect on the article.

Or if we are using argumentum ad absurdum, even defining the trope as Unusual Aesop, (or anything else), wouldn't solve the "problem" either, because technically, someone, somewhere, could argue that an example isn't really unusual, and we couldn't disprove it. It would rely on the same concept, just with a more incorrect title.

And if we could prove what the 'mainstream perception of morality' is, this discussion wouldn't exist.

This is going round in circles now. I'd recommend cutting the page, but that's all I have to say.

edited 27th Apr '11 1:13:33 PM by halfmillennium

And if only tropes that's presence can be "proven" could have a page, this website would lose 99.999% of it's pages.

edited 27th Apr '11 1:27:35 PM by EternalSeptember

Like I said, circles.

That's depending on the context, for example "It's OK to lie to save someone's life" would be a very reasonable Aesop, but "It's OK to lie for personal gains" would be an unusual/family unfriendly lesson exactly because it is normally considered immoral.

"It's OK to lie to save someone's life" would be a reasonable Aesop, but it would still be an unusual one. "Unusual" means something we don't see a lot—it doesn't mean good or bad. The kind of stories that have Aesops generally stick to a limited set of ideas and present them without nuance. For one thing, they are often meant for children and children can't handle (or are thought of as unable to handle) nuance. So they'll usually say "lying is bad" in absolute terms, even though we understand that lying is sometimes good.

I could make a case that greed is sometimes good, as well. "Greed is good" would then also be reasonable, but it would remain unusual. We just don't see it taught much.

It's possible that someone, somewhere, has a crazy "LYING IS THE WORST SIN EVER!" morality, but that is so detached from the mainstream perception of morality, that it would have no practical effect on the article.

Just about nobody has that morality, yet a lot of stories teach that. There's a disconnect between what we think is true and what stories teach. So a moral can be widely believed yet rare in stories, or rarely believed and widespread in stories.

"Harry Potter would not be one just because it shows the good guys using magic. Good guys who use magic happens fairly often."

True, but Harry Potter happened to be the series that got in a lot of trouble for it, likely because it explicitly referred to it as "witchcraft and wizardry." In any case, it goes against fundamentalist dogma for good guys to be using witchcraft, and in turn doesn't fit its moral framework, hence why it is considered family unfriendly.

"Moral" as in "moral of the story" is only tangentially related to "moral" as in "a moral thing to do".

"Greed is good" can be a moral even if not everyone agrees that it's moral.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Near all the Fairy Tales examples are Accidental Aesops.

edited 1st Aug '11 3:33:48 PM by MagBas

I don't think the name or the definition are problematic — it's pretty obvious that an aesop along the lines of "Sometimes money really can buy happiness" or "Sometimes it's better to lie than tell the truth" would fit the definition — it's the fact that people keep putting in stuff that belongs in Spoof Aesop or, and this is the one I see most often, Space Whale Aesop. I think a Family-Unfriendly Aesop can overlap with Accidental Aesop, and often does. But I don't see any reason to "repair" the trope, just get rid of the more outlandish examples.

This.

It doesn't need a rename, either; it fits well with the naming pattern of Family-Unfriendly Death or Family-Unfriendly Violence in being something that seems a bit on the edgy side, especially if seen in an otherwise family-friendly work. (Note that there's already a few Disney examples.)

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

It's a natter magnet. Don't know what can be done in addition to clearly clarifying that it's YMMV (which people still post frequently - trust me, everyone knows it is already).

I think the simplest solution would be to change the very nature of the Internet itself. That'd stop people from misunderstanding the trope and filling the page with natter.

Funny thing is, "family unfriendly" doesn't mean "bad thing," just "considered inappropriate for children by modern standards." I added Wall E and Cars 2 not because I disagreed with their messages (on the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly with Wall E's and... I'd say about 85% heartedly with Cars 2's) but because of the controversy each generated.

edited 22nd Sep '11 10:50:58 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

See, but we can't define "family unfriendly" as "hostile to at least one family, somewhere."

Yes, neo-cons objected to perceived Pixar environmentalist messages. Nonetheless, a Green Aesop is very much a Stock Aesop, so we shouldn't list it under Family-Unfriendly Aesop. Me, I disagree both with the idea that Wall-E had an environmentalist message and with environmentalist messages in general, but I couldn't call "industry=bad, environment-good" a family unfriendly aesop by any means. It's an extremely common and accepted if simplistic aesop for kids!

Wall E mention scrapped, then.

I still think Cars 2 fits, as it went a lot further than Wall E did.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I couldn't say, since I haven't seen it, but "anti-Big Oil" doesn't sound very family unfriendly. Again, it could be a bad message, and some parents could object to it, but is it the opposite of a stock family friendly aesop? I don't think so.

Which goes to objective definition we're trying to settle on. I think "the opposite of a stock kids aesop" would be a clear, tropable definition. So "share," even if handled poorly, even if it contradicts some parents' values, can never be a family unfriendly aesop because it's such a stock one for children. "Don't share," even if handled well, even if it sparks a whole philosophical movement, would be a family unfriendly aesop - always.

Can we apply that to all examples? Don't be yourself? Not everyone is special? Lie, sometimes? Hard work is not always worth it?

I agree with Routerie about Green Aesops.

I think part of what defines this trope is the notion that it isn't always wrong, or that it's not wrong from a certain perspective. That under certain circumstances, in specific cases, this particular aesop is more sensible than the warmer and fuzzier variety, but we don't want to admit it. "Unpleasant but not always untrue," such as it is. Or, if everyone's dead set on a title change, just call it Cynical Aesop.

edited 26th Sep '11 12:53:24 PM by gfrequency

Not only is that taking too objective a stance on a subjective matter, but it also is the polar opposite of how it is often used in practice; for complaining about aesops one does not like. Of course, I don't think either approach is fitting.

Oh, and if it is simply that it contrasts with Stock Aesops, perhaps Unconventional Aesop is a more fitting name than Family-Unfriendly Aesop.

EDITED IN: Oh, and should this trope be used as an index? There are several tropes that are family unfriendly aesops themselves, perhaps we could index them.

edited 26th Sep '11 4:14:54 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart