Too many people are using Family-Unfriendly Aesop as "Unfortunate Implications, without the strict guidelines". They seem to have missed that the moral must be intended by the creator, and that Tropes Are Not Bad. I would take it to TRS, but I can't see any action that would help with this problem besides cleaning the examples and the wicks and keeping an eye on the page.

Oh my. That page is out of control. It seems like a lot of those could go under Warp That Aesop.

Good Lord, there's quite a crap-ton of just plain reading into to things to much going in there. Someone needs to add a caution note about how any Aesop can sound bad if you think about to hard. There's some in there that I don't even see it at all(like "A Boy Named Sue")

You sure this isn't the job for TRS? Seems like there's more than just misuse going on with this trope. Strawman Has a Point was suffering the same problems.

I only see misuse here.

I don't see how TRS would help. The title is reasonably clear, and though the description might need a little rewording and clarification, there's no major problems with it.

I checked the Anime/Manga folder. One entry was a clear misuse so I deleted it, but I wasn't sure about the entries below, especially since I don't know the series^note hmm, what's the plural of "series"?:

Looks more like a description, not an endorsement:

• Pet Shop Of Horrors is based entirely on this, due to the dubious morality of the Pet Shop owner, Count D. While he maintains that he is only giving humanity what they deserve, a good heart is no guarantee of a good outcome — several of the Count's shadier customers escape unscathed from their deals with the Count, while softer-hearted clients can be "punished" for a minor character flaw. Even if a character undergoes a positive change through being with their pet, such as developing a sense of compassion, they often fall victim to a tragic twist. This may be because he wasn't human - his character reads like one of The Fair Folk, so expect Values Dissonance, because their morality isn't anything like our own.
• [A legitimate example from Monster]
  • The other, much more horrifying story the "God of Peace" gives us, 'no matter how good you are, there will always be darkness inside you, so you should kill yourself'.

Possible complaining:

• Kaleido Star
  • "When everyone around you is treating you like dirt, if you just be really nice to them and generally act like a dogsbody, they'll come around eventually." While it's nice to see the Genki Girl's sweet personality overcoming all the odds and avoiding the risk of becoming a Purity Sue by having to work for her acceptance, some of the other Kaleido Stage performers could really have used a slap in the face, rather than getting away with some seriously obnoxious behavior (such as Layla's sort-of Girl Posse Julie and Charlotte, before their Heel–Face Turn).
  • And another one, from "Kalos Eido's Guide to Managing a Circus": "When your cast members are trying to kill each other, just leave them to it. It's a learning experience for them. While you're at it, why not try putting even more pressure on someone who's already being bullied?"
• Puella Magi Madoka Magica revels in this. "Never follow your emotions, you'll end up dead." "Never believe in the power of friendship - you'll also end up dead." "Helping others will royally bite you in the ass." "If you ever become a better person, you'll get killed." "Never sacrifice your individual well-being for the good of the universe." This is later inverted by the end of the anime in the new world created by Madoka.
  • In a very broad sense, and spelled out by Madoka's mother at one point, the entire show revolves around the concept of maturity...and it defines maturity as the point at which one's suffering is equal to one's happiness. In other words: Growing Up Sucks but at least you get to drink!

edited 17th May '13 5:54:12 PM by nemui10pm

A lot of the entries are also Zero Context Examples, making it harder to know which ones are valid.

I say just zap all Zero context examples. I'm a little busy at the moment but I will try to purge this page of misuse. How do you know if a creator of a work was trying to tell an aesop?

The Fairy Tales' section could be organized into regions (there's a couple instances of general "One Russian tale" or "Welsh fairy tales have this").

Should instances where the example is "one story has [this thing]" be removed? They tend to narrate the story instead of just telling the readers how this trope is used.

There's also a few instances of Literature (The Ugly Duckling) or Theatre (Into the Woods) examples listed in the Fairy Tale section; should they just be moved?

edited 21st May '13 1:08:33 PM by DunDun

I've started the cleanup again, in full Hedgetrimmer mode. I've cut the dubious examples from Anime and Manga and cleaned Comic Books, but gave up halfway through Fairy Tales. I'll be continuing later will update when I do so.

Update: I'm up to the Live-Action TV folder right now. I am starting to re-consider the TRS option, especially after looking at the 1000+ wicks, but I'll just do what I can for now.

edited 29th Aug '13 2:04:28 AM by nemui10pm

Done up to the Newspaper Comic folder. I've put the Star Trek example in discussion. If anyone familiar with the franchise can help with context, that would be great.

Everything's done except the Western Animation folder (the biggest one, unfortunately).

I've tackled some of the blatantly false examples/factually inaccurate examples down in Western Animation.

I do think this might be a job for the TRS, because the trope isn't as tightly defined as I thought it was. The writeup seems like it's trying to say Unconventional Aesop or Controversial Aesop, until it gets to "If it appeared in a kids' television show, the network would get 32,845 angry e-mails from Moral Guardians in the first day after airing." Aside from the fact that that disqualifies the entire Western Animation folder, do they have to be outright offensive?

EDIT: Ay-yi-yi, this section is awful. Most examples amount to "you could interpret it this way, if you wanted to, which is why this episode sucks!" I think half of the page is that all-encompassing King Of The Hill natterfest, but I'm not entirely familiar with the show.

edited 25th Sep '13 8:43:57 AM by PrideofthePeaches

Yeah, I do check for a TRS spot now and then. The description is a little meandering and not to-the-point, and I need some help for the wick cleaning, at the very least. And no, the aesop doesn't have to be offensive, just unusual.

I've pulled the King of the Hill example to discussion, as I did with the enormous, Star Trek entry. I'll try to tackle them later in the day.

I'm thinking we may as well scrap this. It's supposed to be "unconventional aesop," which itself is open to interpretation not just of the aesops but of what is conventional as well, but in practice often gets interpreted as "problematic aesop" which is even more subjective. Frankly, I'm not sure either concept has enough of a point to it to be worth the hassle.

edited 29th Sep '13 4:20:16 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

I think "aesops that don't fit conventional wisdom of Stock Aesops" is tropeable. Whether it's tropeable enough to be worth the cleanup effort might be a little more debatable, but I see no justification for cutting the page, and if it's to stay, it should be up to the standard of the wiki.

I'm inclined to think that "conventional" is not going to be as easy to define as you seem to think.

This, basically. It's not just a matter of misuse, it's also one of wondering how to define what this was supposed to be in the first place.

Every bit of effort spent on trying to fix this trope could be spent on more clearly-defined ones.

Fair enough, I'll leave it off for now. But if it's poorly-defined, it's all the more reason for a TRS thread, and I'll be looking out for a slot.

We can start by zapping any examples that are due to blotched handling of the Aesop as opposed to its intended message like these.

Or are we not yet removing examples but deciding how to handle this?

Explained in the link.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Oct 17th 2019 at 6:24:28 AM

How so?

I'm not too familiar with how this works so I don't know if we can just delete bad examples or have to wait until a consensus is reached.

Found one bad example. From LoliRock

Family-Unfriendly Aesop: Episode 8, which was so bad, the creators apologized for it. The premise was supposed to be Talia going on a date, but it's handled terribly. Not only is Talia made out to be a bad person for not being interested, but Kyle is never called out for his borderline stalker-ish behavior (repeatedly pursuing her, using gifts to win her affection, showing up at her home with no permission), nor are Iris and Auriana called out for violating Talia's privacy (giving Kyle her phone number without Talia's consent). On top of all that, Praxina taunts Talia for believing Kyle was her boyfriend, which never happened, so it comes out of nowhere. It doesn't help the very next episode has Talia and Iris apologize to Auriana for teasing her about being boy-crazy. So, it's okay to be interested in boys (one or many), but not okay to be uninterested entirely?

I dont think theres even an aesop.