About their relation with AccetableBreakOfTheReality...: Free Range Children

The fifth paragraph:"This trope doesn't count in shows that are set before 1950 (sometimes even later), as children then usually ran about more so than modern children, as the concept of adulthood began much earlier back in those days... and adults were less concerned about the likelihood of dangerous strangers and such in those days. Naturally this being mainly American trope, in many other countries, even the first world ones (like Japan and Germany), this isn't even a trope — that's a fact of life. Kids in this countries are generally allowed much more freedom, and parents tend to worry much less about various dangers — even if there is more danger to them in US." If the former is true, the own page image needs be changed. If the latter is true, the entire Anime/ Manga folder needs be removed. If either is wrong, the description needs be changed.

edited 1st Apr '11 2:23:39 PM by MagBas

I don't know about the 50s or foreign countries, but I can say that this is more true for rural children than city children. Rural children are more likely to be allowed to range farther from home (although not as far as some of the extremes in the trope) without adult supervision.

For example, in rural Oregon, it's not unheard of for young children (preteen or so) to go camping without adults or older children being present. They are also more likely to walk to school or stores than city kids.

edited 1st Apr '11 2:32:35 PM by ccoa

Bump.

I believe that what's this article describe is not a creation trope, but a perception bias, so to say. Because modern American middle-class kids are incredibly sheltered and everybody around them believe that it's the norm, this situation invariably tints the works where this doesn't happen. Everyone (IN AMERICA!) just kinda freaks out and needs to at least assign it a name to neatly file it in one's head and avoid cognitive dissonance. Thus is this trope.

edited 9th Apr '11 5:33:32 PM by Khathi

Bump.

Bump.

Perception bias or not, this is a trope. In the media, kids have a metric farktonne more freedom to travel and roam around by themselves than they do in real life.

I do agree that this is a trope, and being an American, born and raised, and never been anywhere but here, I am not aware of the perceptions of the rest of the world over this trope. I am aware that kids in other countries do get quite a bit of freedom, and as someone here noted, even in the US in modern times, it's not uncommon for kids in rural areas to have the same kind of freedom. And, for this reason, I think it was rather odd to put stipulations on the trope based on geographic locations and eras. If the trope is "Kids get free reign and parents don't keep an incredibly tight leash on them" then that other stuff shouldn't matter. Call it a Justified Trope if you must, but it's still the trope. That's the way I see it anyway.

Actually, the own first paragraph hints Free-Range Children is a Acceptable Break from Reality: "Generally in US and, by extension in many modernized societies, children usually don't stray off too far from home without some sort of older guidance. Children that do go off by themselves from home usually don't go very far, perhaps just down the street to visit a friend, a nearby venue that helps children use their services, or go to school if its nearby. If the child was to wander off a farther distance, the guardians or the parents would (usually) be quite worried and would probably even punish the child when he or she comes back." This is more obvious in the second paragraph: " IN FICTION(enphasis mine), this fact is usually ignored. A good deal of fiction feature children that are from the ages of 7 to 9, sometimes in order to help them relate to their younger audience. At this age, they would fall under the situation mentioned above, however, they will wander about their town, the country, or even the world with little adult supervision or even concern. They'll ride down to their friend's house who lives on the other side of town and even go to local venues that aren't anywhere close to their house. Hell, if plot calls for it, sometimes they'll go down to the next town by themselves, or even the next state or country with little to no outcry from parents, guardians or child protection services." And this is outright said in paragraph 4: "This is an Acceptable Break from Reality, as a show involving Timmy and Sally being driven everywhere by their parents, and going out only with their family (or their friends with parents in close tow), with them ending their day in their rooms, only to repeat the process the next day wouldn't be very exciting. Audiences want to see their cast do something different, and there is only so much one can do about the home." And to a Acceptable Break from Reality be a trope...

edited 16th Apr '11 5:41:03 AM by MagBas

Seems to me that the entire fifth paragraph is unnecessary specificity. Its nitpicky, awkwardly phrased, and tries to put uneeded limiters on the trope.

Or even worse, it reads as if some non-American person read the trope, sniffed, and thought, "Well, it might be this way in America, but that's America. Here in (insert country here), we are a bit more rational and civilized about it." and then made an edit.

The Real Life section makes the same points the fifth paragraph does, so the fifth paragraph is redundant and should go.

edited 16th Apr '11 8:32:22 AM by Worldmaker

Considering this is a Acceptable Break from Reality, if exists a place/time where it not occurs, it is needed, yes. I created this thread to investigate this. And, if my memory is right, the "before 1950" was mentioned in their original YKTTW version.

edited 16th Apr '11 8:40:59 AM by MagBas

Mag Bas, do you have any specific reason for disliking this trope or something?

Other people have pointed out that it is a trope, that it is applicable, and the problem lies with the fifth paragrah, not the trope as a whole. When the fifth paragraph was removed, you promptly restored it. Do you have some sort of point to make here, or some agenda you are following?

Once again, it seems to me that someone, a non-American someone, took a disliking to this trope and edited in a "We don't do that sort of thing in my country" sillyness.

This is an Acceptable Break from Reality. If really exists a place/time where all the children can move so freely this paragraph really is necessary- because in said places/times this really is Not A Trope.

edited 16th Apr '11 9:15:59 AM by MagBas

First, Don't Explain the Joke. The trope can stand on its own without artificially narrowing its scope. It is unneeded.

Second, that fifth paragraph is essentially saying "This does not happen in enlightened areas like Japan and Europe, but only in barbaric America, where its too dangerous to walk on the streets, and it doesn't apply to America of the 1950s, which wasn't as bad as modern times in Dangerous America". It's an anti-American Take That! and is unneeded.

The rest of the trope description explains how this trope is an Acceptable Break from Reality quite well without being snide and condescending about it. And the Real Life section states quite clearly that it is less applicable in some European and Asian countries. Hell, it's less applicable in some American communities.

The point isn't about the real world, so your arguments don't really apply anyway. The point is this: in fiction, children... even children living in areas where children normally have more freedom of movement than other places... often have more freedom of movement than in real life. That is the point of the trope.

edited 16th Apr '11 9:25:58 AM by Worldmaker

The motive i created this thread was to investigate the places where this really is Not A Trope and rewrite the fifth paragraph. By the way, if really exists a time/ place where this is normal, this is not "artificially" narrowing the trope. And this is about the real world. Free-Range Children is an Acceptable Break from Reality.

edited 16th Apr '11 9:31:48 AM by MagBas

It's only an acceptable break of reality as far as it breaks reality. But as the description and the examples show, there is some Truth in Television. But the true bits shouldn't be discounted just because it's true.

My point is that a work doesn't necessarily need to break reality in order to qualify for the trope. If that's the way the trope is portrayed, than that needs to change, at least in my opinion.

Mag, you are molehilling. You're taking one tiny, itty bitty problem that is easily fixed by deleting the fifth paragraph and turning it into a farking mountain. Just let it go already, and cut that one paragraph. The Real Life examples, as I have already pointed out three times, "investigate where this is Not A Trope", except even in those locations, this is still a trope.

edited 16th Apr '11 9:44:42 AM by Worldmaker

Free-Range Children only is considered a trope because this is an Acceptable Break from Reality. To comparison, guess in Free Range Adult. ... At least put a substitute. If in a determined area the grade of freedom used is realistic not exists a trope. Exist at least two anime examples listed in Values Dissonance: Grave Of Fireflies and Ponyo On A Cliff By The Sea.

edited 16th Apr '11 10:22:10 AM by MagBas

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not entirely convinced. Some tropes are Truth in Television and are still very valid tropes. Take for example Kids Are Cruel. Although it seems exaggerated in fiction, there is no doubt that it happens in real life. I believe the same thing can be said of this trope. It happens often enough in fictionland in improbably ways that it does break reality, but happens enough in reality to also be Truth in Television. It's one of those tropes that straddles the edge, I would say. But to limit the examples to only one or the other just seems ridiculous to me.

Well it is dangerous in other places like Japan as well. Detective Conan Lampshades this many times and is one of the reasons why the professor or ran gets involved in different cases because they are there to avoid this. Yotsuba gets yelled at and has her bike taken away when she goes off and deconstructs this a bit when her father purposely disappears on her at a festival to teach her a lesson to not do this.

edited 16th Apr '11 10:19:44 AM by Raso

Mag, once again you are getting too hung up on an insignificant detail.

Also, you are utterly ignoring me when I say that even in areas where children are given more freedom, the amount of freedom the children from those areas are given IN FICTIONAL MEDIA is ridiculous.

Ah! Sorry. I noted only now you is the launcher of the trope. In this case, you probably is right about someone have put the fifth paragraph after the launching...

edited 16th Apr '11 5:40:03 PM by MagBas

Maybe the trope should be rewritten to first focus in general terms about children having free range, and then point out that this is of varying realism depending on culture, time, and place.

I mean... I grew up in the suburbs in the 80s, and I would go out into the woods and play out there exploring by myself for hours and only come back for meals. This is when I was eight.

First graders all walked to the local elementary, and that meant walking on a path through the woods. (A local biker gang did try to claim the territory once, the fathers of the neighborhood got together and went out there to tell them to get lost.)

But that was a more civilized age. A time when the police took the attitude that if you were a punk, then you deserved whatever the local populace decided to give you. If you were going to be a crybaby about it, then you shouldn't have been a punk in the first place.

I'm Deboss, and I support this message.

The thing was, kids up until the 80's in America often ranged much further in their community, be it to malls, local swimming pools and local woods up until the mid 80's. So says this trouper who is forty and not only grew up with this troupe but saw it change as the media started to focus on overblown fears of kidnappings and drugs.