Aesop Cleanup

The Is This An Example? thread directed me here. This is on Scott The Woz; is it valid?

• Broken Aesop: You're Not an RPG Guy ends with Scott accepting that there is nothing wrong with disliking another game genre (in his case, RPGs) as long as you are respectful of those who like them and aren't afraid to occasionally dip your toes in. This, despite a previous scene where Scott meets God, the latter decrying the existence of RPGs and proclaiming that he had created humanity with an innate instinct to hate RPGs.

If anything, I think "You're not an RPG guy" was made... not as an apology, exactly, but still sort of a way to recant and be more open-minded. So it's probably meant to be "yes, I said that, but it doesn't apply now," and not damper the new message.

SoundCloud

I've seen a few examples on Lost Aesop that I think better suit Broken Aesop:

• Pooh's Grand Adventure unfortunately suffers from lost aesops. The story is about coming to terms with the loss of a friend except Christopher Robin gets found again. This undermines any symbolism to coping with loss and undermines the self-actualization that the characters experience. This story also doesn't account for the fact that reality sucks, and that while some things can be attributed to imagination and fear, some things are REALLY not. This acknowledges that the Aesop is about loss. In addition, saying that "reality sucks" seems overly pessimistic.
• PETA's Dark Parody of Cooking Mama, Cooking Mama: Mama Kills Animals, comes off as an attempt to show the evils of eating meat; however, the game itself really only gives the aesop "Turkey meat comes from turkeys, And That's Terrible." The game was so hilariously bad, Majesco had the Cooking Mama character issue a response, knowing there was no way anybody was going to take it seriously. Again, the moral is clearly "don't eat meat", it's just botched up by having Mama not actually kill animals since the turkey was, just like Jacob Marley, dead to begin with.
• The Futurama episode "Amazon Women in the Mood" seems to attempt some kind of Aesop about the futility of the battle of the sexes... which is slightly deflated by leaning on a lot of sexist humor (the men are suddenly played as universally Straw Misogynist, and the Space Amazon society is basically every lazy female stereotype Recycled In Space) and Double Standard Rape: Female on Male. There's a bit of mitigation in that Kif is legitimately horrified by the idea of "Death by Snu-Snu", but only because he's effeminate, cementing the idea that A Man Is Always Eager even when it will literally kill him. Again, it says what the intended moral is.

For every low there is a high.

I think Lost Aesop needs a cleanup as if an Aesop is too subtle, it's probably not an intended Aesop (every example I've seen fits some other complaint).

WesternAnimation.Raya And The Last Dragon

• Broken Aesop: Chief Benja believes that one should not withhold trust from someone just because they are from another tribe, another land and this call to trust is a noble one and hard to argue with. Sisu also believes similarly, reasoning that the world was so broken because people won't learn to trust each other. However, this is very different from withholding trust from someone who has deliberately and intentionally betrayed you. This caused Raya to shut down completely and not trust anyone, but her experiences in the story encouraged her to open up again, including to Namaari, who unfortunately, betrayed that trust a second time. Ultimately when dealing with betrayal, one side should not be expected to do all the heavy lifting and always be the first to give forth trust especially when the side that betrayed you never openly acknowledges the hurt they caused.

I question this as written as; 1. it's because they reach out and trust her despite this that saves the day (unlikable but not logic breaking). 2. It seem more about the Alternate Aesop Interpretation than how the events break the Aesops logic.

• Accidental Aesop:
  • Sacred Hospitality is worthless in some contexts and downright dangerous in others. Raya's heists are shown to be more effective than Sisu's attempts to ingratiate herself with various peoples. If Sisu had followed Raya's lead more often, they would have gotten into fewer scrapes.
  • It doesn't matter if you are The Scapegoat for the rest of the world; if you had a hand in a great mistake, you can't keep falling back on bad behaviors or traditions to justify your actions. No one invokes Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse to Namaari, but they all feel the sentiment when she keeps chasing after them and demanding the Dragon Gem shards.
• Alternate Aesop Interpretation: While the story aesop is about the need to trust people, due to how the conflict started and became worse due to being too trusting, an alternative take could be that sometimes trust needs to be given freely, sometimes trust must be earned.

I believe Accidental Aesop and Alternate Aesop Interpretation are mutually exclusive as the former only applies if the work has no intended Aesop and the latter only if did have one. Or can AA apply if it's a different Aesop than the AAI?

Maybe some of these three Aesops can work better if their points were moved around each other.

I feel like the meanings of those two have decayed a bit. Originally, Accidental Aesop was when audiences felt that a work clearly not meant to have a moral actually has a pretty decent moral, and Alternate Aesop Interpretation was when audiences felt that a work that has an intended moral also has an unintended moral that's more apparent than the intended one.

This is on YMMV.The Puzzle Place:

• Broken Aesop: In one episode, the kids want to act out a story, and they find a fairy tale in a book where the accompanying illustration shows a prince and princess, both with light skin and blonde hair. Kiki, Leon, Skye, and Julie collectively decided that since only Ben & Jody look like that, those two are the only options to play the main characters. This makes them sad until they all decide to go find tales and myths from cultures that match their ethnicity. The Aesop is supposed to be that anyone of any ethnicity can be beautiful or handsome. But it never mentioned that the parts didn't have to go to Ben & Jody and that it would be fine for any of the kids to play the Prince and Princess in a fairy tale. The Aesop came across looking more like a repudiation of the Black Vikings trope - telling kids that they should only ever act as someone of their own race on stage, and that people of color can't play leads in fairy tales of European origin.

Come to think of it, Broken Aesop seems like a mark of inherently bad writing—a violation of Tropes Are Tools.

It seems to be written with jokingly broken aesops in mind but it almost never gets used for that. It should really be YMMV if kept at all (and I do think there's value to keeping it in some way, albeit maybe with a less negative title, like Informed Aesop).

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Informed Aesop sounds better. It lends itself better to constructive analysis like Alternate Aesop Interpretation. That many well successful/well received works/Aesops suffer this and many still recognize the worth of the intended Aesop suggests it’s not as deal-breakingly bad as Broken implies.

On the subject, this was commended out under BrokenAesop.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic.

• "A Canterlot Wedding" has Princess Celestia give an Aesop about the importance of trusting one's instincts, as Twilight's doing so saved the real Princess Cadance and the day. However, Twilight's instinctive repose was only Right for the Wrong Reasons and to make outrageous accusations without evidence in a way that ruined her credibility even to herself, which would have doomed everyone if not for the the fake Cadance grabbing the Villain Ball immediately afterward. Twilight's instincts also led her to nearly attack the real Cadance before being talked out of it. Also, Celestia and everyone else's instincts' to trust the fake Cadance over Twilight were proven wrong and almost destroyed Equestria.

It was commented out citing "So the “trust your instincts” Aesop is broken because characters had bad instincts? But what if instincts had little to do with the other character’s decisions?"

I wondered that myself, but my reason for is what else would they/are they portrayed as making those decisions off of if not instinct (or feelings/emotion which seem the same thing in this case)?

The original Aesop verbatim:

I asked the MLP cleanup but they weren’t sure given the state Broken Aesop is in. Thoughts?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jul 5th 2021 at 11:37:24 AM

As much as snowclones are generally to be discouraged, Informed Aesop actually sounds vastly better as a name for this page than Broken Aesop does. Not sure if a rename would be feasible, unfortunately.

It does fit with the other Informed tropes.

Broken Aesop can be kept as a (exampleless?) super trope to Informed Aesop, Clueless Aesop, Aesop Amnesia, Space Whale Aesop, and the like. Broken Aesop a widely recognized concept but one general audiences tend to use interchangeably with other criticisms about the Aesop.

Thoughts about the "A Canterlot Wedding" example? I can see it fitting Informed Aesop as "trust your instincts" has little to nothing to do with the conflict or resolution. But does it/can it adequately fit Broken (maybe with some reworking)?

I've got a question about these two examples of Broken Aesop from Star Trek: Insurrection:

• Broken Aesop:
  • The whole film's message is about the evils of relocation, which nobody denies has had horrible effects in Real Life, but in this movie it will save far more lives than it ruins (assuming the people allied with the enemies of the Federation can really be trusted), and the aliens being relocated aren't native to the planet they're being forced off (though they do have a stronger claim to the planet than the Federation do). In addition, unlike some unfortunate Real Life examples, the goal was not to force them into cramped undesirable land that they would struggle to survive on simply to take their land, they would have been moved to a comfortable world that suited their needs as well as possible. The entire plan comes across far less like Native American relocation camps of the past and more like a case of eminent domain for the good of the greater society.
  • The back-to-nature, rural simplicity message, with the Ba'ku portrayed as living in an idyllic and peaceful society, is also utterly shredded by two completely independent sets of facts. First, the only reason they're not bedeviled by disease, disabilities and injuries from farming accidents lies in their planet's apparently unique magical radiation, while everywhere else in the Federation injuries and disabilities such as Geordi's blindness or Picard's heart injury have to be managed with the technology we are supposed to believe they are right to shun. Second, the day is ultimately saved through the use of transporters, starships, phasers and holodecks. Meaning that ultimately the Ba'ku settled down in a place where they could get by without technology... and ended up at the mercy of anyone with a holodeck who happened to bump into them. Return to nature, folks, and when the aliens come you'd better hope they're friendly, because otherwise you're going to be shaken down so hard your teeth will fall out!

On the Broken Aesop (live-action films) page, it's a single entry that is written as follows:

• In Star Trek: Insurrection, an idyllic society that is portrayed as perfect exists without technology, on a planet with magical radiation that makes the advanced medical technology of the Federation unnecessary, even though the chief engineer needs technology to see and the captain needs technology to keep his heart beating. Then, without technology ceasing to be bad, the heroes use phasers, transporters, starships and holodecks to save the planet to live their idyllic, technology-free existence as the easy victims of anyone who happens to stroll past. You could argue that the Federation was partially responsible for bringing a technologically advanced enemy to their doorstep, and thus the ante had been upped to where using technology wouldn't break the aesop, but Worf's Bajoran friends can tell you how well being defenseless and minding your own business works in a galaxy with the Romulans, Cardassians, Dominion, and Ferengi. On top of all that, the idyllic society that promotes the 'Technology = Evil' message is actually using technology of its own, in the form of farming implements and an irrigation system. The line where technology becomes bad seems to be drawn at an arbitrary point.

All three examples come across as complaining rather than legitimate entries as currently written, and seem to try and skip around the fact that the film's Aesop is really about consent (taking people's right to choose away from them). You can argue whether or not they handle that Aesop well, but these two entries aren't doing that.

The first entry is quite literally what the characters are arguing about in the show, but acts like that isn't discussed in the show and ignores the show's counterpoint to that very position (that it doesn't matter if someone isn't originally native to the location they're living in; if they've lived there long enough, it will have created a specific way of life based on how they live in that place, and relocation will inevitably change or destroy that culture). It therefore isn't breaking down the show's full argument, it's just cherry-picking to create a Broken Aesop entry.

The first entry also seems to be relying on the idea that the US concept of eminent domain is good, and isn't controversial or fought against in real life for many of the same reasons as the concept of forced relocation in general. The entry is effectively "the film argues forced relocation is bad, but if I interpret the film as an eminent domain example and then imply eminent domain is a good thing, I can claim the show has a Broken Aesop".

The second entry actually contradicts the argument in the first entry: the reason the Ba'ku have such a unique way of life that will be destroyed if they're relocated is precisely because of the planet's special properties, something that doesn't appear to exist anywhere else in the known galaxy (as far as the Federation is aware). It (and the third entry) also create strawman arguments. The film never claims that other people should shun technology, and never argues that people should be so anti-technology that they exist without any tools whatsoever in their lives. All the film tells us is that the Ba'ku made the choice that best suits them, they don't want technophobes ruining the lifestyle choice they've made for themselves, and they don't want to leave because they don't want to give up the lifestyle choice they made. They're not arguing that others are wrong for using technology to treat otherwise untreatable conditions; they're arguing that it's wrong for outsiders to forcibly impose their technology upon them without their consent. They're arguing that it's wrong for themselves and the specific way of life they've chosen to embrace. They're arguing that the planet's unique properties is the very thing that allows their way of life to succeed.

The heroes using technology to save the right of other cultures to choose how they live their lives isn't a Broken Aesop — it's part of Star Trek's basic premise (sometimes well, sometimes badly). Singling out this film when it's a repeating plot line in multiple episodes across every variation of the franchise seems a bit cherry-picked (for example, the difference between the Ba'ku and the Bajorans is that the Federation is breaking its own rules with the Ba'ku). By the time you get to the last few sentences of the second entry, it's not even hiding the fact that it's complaining through mockery. If it was the heroes using technology to protect their own technology-free way of life then, by all means, Broken Aesop away. But the technophile heroes using technology to protect the lifestyle choice of a different culture is pretty much standard Star Trek.

If there is a legitimate argument somewhere in these two entries, it desperately needs a rewrite to uncover it. I notice that it's actually troped on the Lost Aesop page, with a potentially better entry premise:

• Star Trek: Insurrection is a bit notorious in the fanbase for this. Is it about how racism is bad? Can't be, because most of the film is dedicated to a near-universally-evil gang of ugly mutants trying to screw over their distant kin. Is it about the return to nature and how Ludd Was Right? Well, no, because the heroes use all kinds of wacky technology to save the day and defeat the bad guys. Is it a metaphor for Indian relocation and the Trail of Tears? Then why are the people being relocated not actually natives, and why are they all white humans? Is it about the folly of greed? Then why is the resource over which people fight for something as universally valuable as a medical advancement?

It's still written as complaining and fridge (and appears to have never heard of "the ends justify the means" concept), but the core Aesop of the film is that people should have the right to choose their way of life, and have that choice respected. And if the fanbase is busy complaining about the technophobic culture being protected by the technophiles, and arguing that the show shouldn't have used such a beneficial reason for the flashpoint (the Federation breaks its own rules because it's motivated by the opportunity to advance medical technology, and actually keeps that a secret from the rest of the Federation because it knows it's doing that in an illegal and morally objectionable way), then the Aesop about consent and choice is indeed getting lost.

I think, perhaps, the Broken Aesop entries are just complaining and the Lost Aesop entry is the one that should be retained, but with a rewrite.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jul 10th 2021 at 12:09:15 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I've noticed that The Simpsons has a bunch of episodes with Broken Aesops, it even has it's own page. But I do wonder, is it possible that the writers of the show are breaking these episode's Aesops on purpose just for the sake of being funny?

Edited by BrianKT on Sep 5th 2021 at 4:07:53 AM

I can't tell if this counts as Broken Aesop or something else, but I need some clarification. In "The Casagrandes" episode 'Bunnstoppable' Syd and Adelaide are told about doing things the right way and putting in that hard work however they are given the task of making 800 bao in a few hours, and they just learned how to make bao properly. They are doing this so that their father can beat his rival and they start using their pets and robot to make the bao, only for them to taste disgusting, they then have to make them the proper way. Should this count as Broken Aesop/ Unintentionally Unsympathetic for the father, Unintentionally Sympathetic for the girls? Also I need to know where to put this example on the main Trope page for The Casagrandes or the YMMV page.

Edited by Indigon on Sep 18th 2021 at 2:35:45 AM

I have been checking the Rugrats recap page and most of them have an Aesop on the list. But this are never the aesop that the episode actually try to show, but just what whoever wrote it took from the episode.

So I think many of those aesops may be shoehorns.

On Lost Aesop, we have:

• Pooh's Grand Adventure unfortunately suffers from lost aesops. The story is about coming to terms with the loss of a friend except Christopher Robin gets found again. This undermines any symbolism to coping with loss and undermines the self-actualization that the characters experience. This story also doesn't account for the fact that reality sucks, and that while some things can be attributed to imagination and fear, some things are REALLY not.

That seems more like a Broken Aesop than a Lost Aesop to me, since we know what the moral is, it's just undermined by turning out not to be about loss at all.

For every low there is a high.

"This story also doesn't account for the fact that reality sucks..."

It's Winnie the Pooh. Why would it go cynical like that?

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Hey, maybe that's why Eeyore's so sad.

Yeah, it's a bad example.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

On YMMV.Green Eggs And Ham, there are these ones which smell of complaining:

• Accidental Aesop:
  • "If you harass someone enough, they will eventually do what you want them to do just to get you to leave them alone!"
  • Alternatively: "Give in to peer pressure!"

• Alternate Aesop Interpretation: Always give in to peer pressure. "No" means "yes."

For every low there is a high.

First off, those two items are mutually exclusive. Second, they both seem to better fit Warp That Aesop.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

For Broken Aesops, I saw this example which I'm pretty sure doesn't fit:

* All Grown Up! tries to teach its viewers about karma. To quote Dil: "Karma is this cool eastern philosophy that says if you do good things, good things happen to you. And if you do bad things, bad things happen. And I for one believe in it." They proceed to focus mostly on the bad side of the equation, by having Angelica take advantage of Susie's broken answering machine to win a singing audition... and find a zit on her face the day after the auditions. You're probably thinking "That's a bit too much." Well, that's not all. After all is said and done, she decides to let Susie perform in her place, even though she had never auditioned at all. At the end of the episode we get this exchange between Angelica and Charlotte.

Charlotte: Okay there was no making that thing look good. Don't worry, I'll make an appointment with my dermatologist.
Angelica: Wait, you can go to a doctor for this? Karma has nothing to do with it? You can't get this from being a bad person?
Charlotte: Of course not. Where did you get an idea like that?
Angelica: Dil, you're a dead man.

It sounds to me like that episode was just using the concept of karma as a plot device, not teaching the audience that karma is a real thing. Though I never actually watched the episode, so I thought I'd check with the community before removing it. What do the rest of you think?

Yeah, it was more of a plot device.

BrokenAesop.Anime And Manga

• Banished From The Heros Party, which is set in a world where a God-given Blessing determines your status from birth, attempts to teach Screw Destiny by showing the protagonists going against their Blessings to live a peaceful and happy life in the countryside, and teaching others to do the same in turn. However, Blessings are not just a job or a societal role—they are also a fundamental part of each person that determines his or her unique set of powers as well. For example, Ruti is not the legendary Hero fated to defeat Maou the Demon King and his armies because society said so, but because she is the only person blessed with the power to actually do it. As a result, the protagonists leaving the front lines where their unique gifts and skills were needed to fight off the demon crisis in order to pursue their own happiness running a farm or apothecary ends up affecting many people whose lives are now presumably more at risk, and comes off as incredibly selfish and callous act.

This sounds more like the characters being Unintentionally Unsympathetic or Esoteric Happy Ending as Broken requires it be shown but this as written only speculates it should be.

Yeah. Its speculating on an outcome that hasn't happened.