Ambiguous Name: Childhood Friend Romance

Okay, I've been cleaning up some of these wicks since it never happened when Unlucky Childhood Friend and Victorious Childhood Friend were merged, but before I get too further I have a suggestion. Namely, I think this needs to be a character trope. The current title is slightly misleading. Namely, it implies a certain level of reciprocation, however, the trope is simply that one childhood friend likes another, who may or may not return their feelings. Thus, I propose we switch it with the redirect Childhood Friend Love Interest or something else to make it clearer.

Also, on a lesser note, a character trope instead of a plot trope is easier to work into a natural sounding sentence.

edited 4th Aug '12 3:21:20 PM by Arha

What about Childhood Crush? Nothing reciprocal there?

There's not, but it also doesn't sound like a character trope, which is generally how people seem to want to use this one.

It could be a character trope - but it would describe the object of affection.

But why should this be a character trope? If one character falls for a childhood friend, or fell for a childhood friend, that's a plot, isn't it?

Well, that point is optional, I suppose. Never mind making it a character trope, I guess. That was mostly because people like to use it as one.

I don't see a notable difference in meaning for the trope by making it a character trope.

I'm fine with switching with the redirect to clarify that's it's not necessarily about a romance story between two characters (rather than just from one to another).

I'd be okay with Childhood Friend Love Interest or Childhood Sweetheart as that's what it sounds like the trope is trying to say. I see what you mean by a romance isn't just one way.

I feel like this should have remained two separate tropes? One for when the love becomes unrequited or a case of Didnt Get The Girl (or guy) and the other when the childhood friends do get together/

There's no meaningful difference in presentation.

I guess the question here is whether we want this written as a plot trope or a character trope. Either way the name is misleading.

This is definitely a plot trope. The Patient Childhood Love Interest is definitely a related character trope, but not all cases of Childhood Friend Romance involve that particular archetype; sometimes there is no romantic tension at all to start with between the two but it develops over the course of the story (whether one-sided or reciprocated).

In any case, since there's only one trope for childhood friend love interests now, certain entries on here will definitely need fixing up (e.g. the Dragon Quest V one).

I'd say, simply revert that stupid merge instead of anything else. This trope is a serious freaking mess, the wicks are screwed up, and the merge was done for pathetic reasons. It was better off as two character tropes (Unlucky Childhood Friend, Victorious Childhood Friend) sure, that was a bit spoiler-y, but it was outright better, as the two variations are deployed enough to be separate tropes in their own right.

But how are they even distinct in approach? Are the characters actually any different before the resolution of whether they won or not? Judging by usage, I'd say no. Not at all.

I don't see how the victorious/unlucky part is relevant to the childhood friend part. What difference does it make to the story, outside itself? That needs to be explained if they're to be two separate tropes. "Childhood friend wins" is People Sit On Chairs if there's no meaning to it.

Unlucky Childhood Friend is pretty clearly a trope. Victorious Childhood Friend is also a trope, though "victorious" isn't really the right word since it's the other party who is taking action in the situation by choosing to return their feelings.

It's only when you frame it as one or the other and spam trope categorization on all situations that it becomes meaningless. I'm not necessarily sure that flat-out reverting the merge but it seems questionable enough that there should be a moratorium on changing the wicks until it gets figured out.

Also, Childhood Friend Romance seems kind of badly written right now. Why do people on the internet feel the need to insert references to the Westermarck effect everywhere? I honestly never heard of it for a long time, and now it feels like it's obligatory for at least one person to bring it up in online discussions, usually on fan communities dissecting the romantic feelings of characters (usually siblings). It's getting to be a warning flag for creepiness.

How is it a pretty clear trope? How is it distinct from Childhood Friend + Did Not Get The Guy?

If Childhood Friend + Did Not Get The Guy -> Childhood Friend + Did Not Get The Guy, then it's not a trope.

If Childhood Friend + Did Not Get The Guy -> Childhood Friend + Did Not Get The Guy + Something Else, then it's a trope.

edited 15th Oct '12 7:56:47 PM by AnotherDuck

I think part of the reason why Unlucky Childhood Friend was originally a trope, distinct from its victorious counterpart, is that a lot of works feature a specific character archetype that is now known as Patient Childhood Love Interest, but said character is specifically a supporting character and not the main love interest, serving a certain role of contrast between that character and whoever the main love interest is. Worth noting that while the childhood friend in this case usually is unlucky or at best leave things open-ended, there are stories out there that subvert the expected result and have the childhood friend win out in the end because the main love interest dies or has to leave or breaks up with the main character or whatnot.

(Also, how I see it, he/she doesn't have to specifically be a childhood friend; he/she can be any sort of pre-established friend with feelings for the main character.)

There's also a version of Patient Childhood Love Interest who is more of a main character, is more likely to be victorious, and serves a different role in the story, arguably.

Sorry if these thoughts aren't really cohesive yet. It's late at night; I'll have to think about this one some more.

The childhood friend character is actually one of the ones most likely to win.

Patient Childhood Love Interest is what I meant, apparently. It should have more than just anime/visual novels, though. It's a cliche in those media, but it's recognizable in general fiction and should have absorbed many more examples during the Childhood Friend Romance merge. It seems to have started out as a Japanese-named trope, and didn't get broadened to fit when it was renamed.

And again, that page also feels obligated to insert a reference to the Westermarck effect, complete with Wikipedia link. The Wikipedia page is short enough to make me wonder how much people actually care about this beyond online fan communities. Am I the only one who thinks this is creepy, especially when there's no evidence that it's a factor in these stories other than Fan Wank?

edited 16th Oct '12 8:37:30 AM by unfound

I don't really care, but it's the kind of trivia that might be interesting on the main Childhood Friend Romance page at least. There are little blurbs like that on other articles noting how the trope relates to real life.

It's Fan Wank. Maybe the writer is aware of the vague idea, but we have Like Brother and Sister for that.

On further examination, Westermarck Effect is an alt-title for Like Brother and Sister. It's everywhere! We have Westermarck Effect!

Why it's creepy: From that Useful Notes page: "The Westermarck Effect is commonly brought up in the midst of shipping discussions where incest, cousins, and childhood friends are involved."

It's practically the Godwin's Law of discussions of shipping preteen characters and siblings. It's become a meme; someone is obligated to trot it out every time. When people discuss shipping long-lost siblings, someone argues that it's not the weird kind of incest according to this effect, and when they discuss shipping step-siblings someone argues that it is still weird because of this effect.

What's more, as far as I can tell it's pseudoscience- a hypothesis from 1891 with some observational support? Not a well-documented scientific theory. It might be correct, but it's cited as absolute fact.

If you want to discuss times when Bob said "It'd be weird to date Alice! We've known each other since we were five!", then that's cool. But this doesn't make anything more scientific. Can't we just say "Bob thinks it would be weird," without further analysis beyond "that's a common reaction in real life"?

And the bottom line: it can't be a factor in the Unlucky Childhood Friend plot, because clearly at least one of the two characters does have romantic feelings in blatant contradiction to the hypothesis.

So, the Westermarck Effect is a pet peeve of yours. So what? If it's often brought up in discussions, it sounds to me like it'd be a good idea to mention it where it's relevant.

If you ask me, mentioning that the Westermarck Effect can partially account for why certain childhood friend romances are one-sided or take a while to get going can be helpful.

However, I do notice that sometimes, the effect is described as though it is somehow the be-all-end-all stopper to all childhood friend romances, when it's at best just one of many factors involved, and only if they grow up together starting from sometime before age 6 or so. Careful wording should keep that from being a problem.

I can see where unfound is coming from on the creepiness, but the fact that the Westermarck effect does get discussed so much in relation to this kind of thing means it should probably indeed be mentioned on the page (though maybe with a note about its questionable nature).

What's creepy about it?