There is a folder named "Partial Aversions"!?
And wretched soft splits...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
No such thing as a "partial aversion". Either there are dead kids in a work or there aren't.
No, the other one.
Most of the "partial" aversion aren't. Kids die.
Other than removing those folders, I'd also suggest making it more clear how indirect examples count, such as city bombings or implied deaths.
Check out my fanfiction!
Crazyrabbits
Chainsaw "partial aversions" with extreme prejudice. I hate that term.
Edited: Come to think of it, "Partial Aversion" could have a place. Let's say God orders all first born to be killed except for one. Isn't the trope being played straight and averted in the same context? Saving one child doesn't negate the fact that the creators chose to shove the immoral act of killing children in our faces. The desired audience reaction is there even if it was averted in one case. Should this not matter?
The category name should probably change to something less ambiguous like "Played Straight & Averted".
edited 5th Jan '15 11:06:53 AM by eroock
No, the other one.
Normally, I'd agree, but I think this trope is kind of absolute on the matter. The trope is about complete protection from death, not being somewhat more protected compared to older characters.
Check out my fanfiction!
Um, first Repair Shop Discussion I've got in but, um, just a thought, a suggestion, feel free to veto. Rather than "Partial Aversions", why don't we change them to "playing With", where a trope isn't played straight, yet isn't entirely subverted or averted.
edited 14th Jan '15 8:17:37 PM by Minni128
The alleged "Partial Aversions" are just "Some kids get killed/seriously injured, others don't"... That is simply "This trope isn't in effect"/"Not an example at all".
We don't do "partial aversions" anymore than we do "partial subversions" or anything like that. They are just misuse fodder, and the trope is about "infant immortality", not "some people die and others don't" which every "partial" section would immediately decay to.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Happiness is a cup of tea
The solution seems easy enough. Just cut out all the examples that include dead kids!
"Partial aversions?" That's like invisible stains- either its there or it isn't there!
Somebody once told me the world was macaroni, I took a bite out of a tree
No, the other one.
There's probably a trope about trying to minimise the impact and especially graphically showing kids dying (such as only implying it), but that's not the same trope as this is.
And on the other side of the aversion scale, we have where kids die just as brutally as the adults. I think that might be the only notable aversion in relation to this trope. Otherwise the page is just about how kids are treated in relation to them dying, which is a bit off target.
Check out my fanfiction!
Chair Man
Ain't this trope in aggregate?
Because if so, we shouldn't list aversions, let alone partial ones.
MAX POWER KILL JEEEEEEEEWWWWW
No, the other one.
It doesn't have to be, since it can be spotted as a pattern within a single work.
Check out my fanfiction!
Or, we could merge the "Partial Aversions" with "Exceptions", as, like partial subversions, partial aversions don't exist either in that vein, and the trope doesn't have to be aggregate, leaving that open for aversions or subversion, the like, with the first sentence paraphrasing as such if the plot demanded, then again, the Anyone Can Die trope is similar in terms of the regard of subversions or aversions and that also lists kids as dying as per that trope's description.
edited 16th Jan '15 6:36:26 AM by Minni128
Whether or not "partial aversions" should be cut altogether or folded into either of the others, the Aversion/Inversion of Infant Immortality could probably be a trope on its own instead of listed on this one as its own section. Some works do make a noticeable point of subverting the Sorting Algorithm of Mortality regarding children (as the film section notes, monster movies are particularely notorious for this, and serious dramas also use it quite often) or to show how evil a villain is by making Would Hurt a Child or Eats Babies one of their character traits.
edited 17th Jan '15 1:35:53 AM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"
Clock is set.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Clock is up with no progress; closing.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
More of a suggestion: The soft splitting of examples into "Played Straight", "Exceptions" and "Partial Aversions" doesn't really pan out. If you look at the examples for the longer lists (Film, Literature etc.) you will see that Partial Aversions mostly talks about an aversion without stating that it was played straight in other cases. Why not only have "Played Straight" and "Aversion" and call everything an Aversion as soon as there is one example of it in the work. This will prevent misuse/ambiguity of categories.