Aesop Cleanup

Found this on YMMV.Paw Patrol:

• Family-Unfriendly Aesop: the show is consider to be fascist, racist, capitalist propaganda.

It should be "considered" not "consider". Man, people don't know how to grammer.

I went ahead and cut it. Despite my own unfamiliarity with the show, I have a feeling that between its target audience and how it managed to earn a Periphery Demographic, it's probably flat-out untrue.

And I sent the troper a grammar notification for one of their previous edits. Let's see if they notice. (I did not correct that edit because I'm on mobile.)

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Mar 30th 2020 at 12:42:38 PM

Family-Unfriendly Aesop is supposed to be a aesop that still has value but can be seen as unconventional.

Mmm, the lack of context, the misuse of the trope, the bad grammar, the insisting that the show is apparently the spawn of all human evil... best example, 10/10, would delete again.

I found a bunch of examples under the description of Broken Aesop I think are encouraging misuse:

Common methods of breaking An Aesop include:

• "Aesop Amnesia: Due to Compressed Vice, a Reset Button, or a Snap Back, there's a lesson, but because Status Quo Is God the sequel/next episode/next installment forgets it happened or pretends it didn't happen, resulting in no consequences." That's Clueless Aesop if the works Status Quo prevents the Aesop from sticking.
• "Non Sequiturs: Having the resolution rely on a Deus ex Machina, Space Whale Aesop, or Karmic Twist Ending." Valid.
• "Not practicing what you preach:"
  • "Commonly in RPGs and Westerns, Thou Shalt Not Kill Aesop is followed by the next major battle having the characters kill something (with the exception of games with Never Say "Die" in play)." Valid.
  • "The moral that deep down, there's good in everyone if the story's villains are portrayed as irredeemable monsters since everyone means everyone, including the villains." Rousseau Was Right is oft more a Central Theme than Aesop, and those with CM's treat them as freak exceptions and may even give them understandable reason they turned out such.
• "Inconsistently applied morals:"
  • "Distorting the moral into "It's only wrong if someone else does it" or "only if the bad guys do it." Valid but distorting sounds like Accidental Aesop or Alternate Aesop Interpretation.
  • "The character learns a lesson about how the thing he desires so much is not worth it, sometimes sacrificing what he wants for the right thing to do, but in the end, he gets what he wanted anyway. This is only true if the lesson was specifically about rejecting said thing." Valid but if it's only under specific circumstances it might be better under a list of stock Aesops that tend to break.
  • "Trying to prove that everybody is important but only once they achieve something. So still only skilled or famous people are important, they just act in an alternative way. Especially common when facing a "Well Done, Son" Guy." Never seen an Aesop broken in that way. Is it worth keeping as a general example if there are no specific ones?
• "Metaphorgotten aesops: These aesops involve some sort of fantastic analogy, but the analogy doesn't work because there's genuine reasons behind whatever "bad" behaviour they're trying to have a stance against. For example, saying that one should accept those who are different, only to show that the difference gives the rejected character an obvious direct advantage, or the difference makes the character a public menace that society is correct to reject. Or that the different person is not a proper representative of their group in a way that makes them more socially acceptable to others, or isn't accepted until they have been sufficiently altered to "fit in"." That's Clueless Aesop as it's not contradicting it's internal logic.
• "Fallacious aesops:"
  • "Trying to teach Be Careful What You Wish For by using a Literal or Jackass Genie who doesn't actually give you what you wished for." I've never seen a work with such a issue.
  • "The Be Yourself Aesop in which a character is told that they should accept themselves as they are or "We already like you the way you are" is occasionally ruined when the character in question was actually trying to do something that can lead to obvious self improvement, as opposed to just changing themselves to fit in with or impress others." Misuse as not violating internal logic.
  • "Saying anyone can do anything they set their mind to by their own resolve, when the character was born into royalty or privilege, born with some sort of superior genetic power, is just plain talented at what they do, has the Powers That Be on their side, or otherwise revealed to be from a powerful, significant bloodline or background explaining their greatness." Valid.
  • "Learning that what happened isn't really your fault, when it was, or learning that you should take responsibilities and accept that it was your fault, when it wasn't." Valid
  • "Learning about the folly of Revenge in a story where everyone the character wanted vengeance on gets punished or killed for their actions anyway, or where the character has plenty of good reasons to want them punished aside from fulfilling a grudge." First part is valid, second is unsatisfying but not violation of internal logic. Second thought the first one would only be valid if the Aesop is about the consequences of personal revenge, more narrow than what this applies.

Thoughts on cutting or moving these?

BrokenAesop.Live Action Films

• In Dragonheart: Battle For the Hearthfire, the reason that we're supposed to find Meghan sympathetic, despite her being a pretty terrible person, is because she's been the victim of sexism her whole life...except that she's hasn't. Unlike her brother Edric, she was born more obviously part-dragon^note She has scales on her face and hard-to-control fire powers, while his scales and Super-Strength are easier to hide. At one point she claims that people would have reacted differently if their situations were reversed, but she disproves that with her own actions—she publicly reveals him as part-dragon after overthrowing him, just to rub salt in the wound, and what do you know, his former ally turns against, proving that their genders had nothing to do with how people treated them.
• Revenge of the Sith:
  • Obi-Wan Kenobi's infamous "only a Sith deals in absolutes" line. Apparently, our beloved Obi-Wan is in fact a Sith lord. This sort of black-and-white holier-than-thou attitude is in-character for the old Jedi Order, but that doesn't break the message any less.
  • Another Aesop that's broken: you're supposed to use the Force for knowledge and defense, never attack. And yet, Jedi repeatedly attack virtually everyone using the Force. Their most notable mistake was not moving against Palpatine sooner. And when Anakin turns to the Dark Side, it's because he wants Palpatine to be spared and Mace Windu demands that Anakin help kill him.
  • All the prequels half-heartedly imply that democracy is important and worth defending, but little of the plot supports this conclusion. Many characters complain that the Republic is slow and inefficient at making decisions, and Palpatine (who was democratically elected) seems to commit all of his sinister deeds with the Senate's consent. The real political moral appears to be "democracy will invariably be corrupted by the evil and power hungry, so we'd all be better off trusting power to a learned council of elites."
    • Also the supposedly democratic Republic is made up of and supports a large amount of monarchies, ranging from the somewhat democratic elected monarchies like Naboo to completely undemocratic birthright absolute monarchies like Mal Cala.

None of these are presented as Aesops, they aren't under An Aesop or its subtropes, I checked. Sith was intended for those hypocrisies as deliberate which led to their downfall, but did an unclear job at portraying it as intentional which seems a separate trope. Cut or move?

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic S1 E10 "Swarm of the Century"

• Clueless Aesop: Probably not entirely clueless, but as more than one viewer has noted, the aesop of this episode, if taken as the face value "you should listen to what your friends have to say instead of dismissing them", almost falls flat when one remembers that Pinkie Pie hardly ever actually tried explaining that she knows what parasprites are and how to get rid of them, giving up after one attempted explanation. In particular, Twilight specifically asks Pinkie if she knows anything about the Parasprites, only for Pinkie to mutter that she needs a trombone and leave without explanation. Considering all things, of course, this could more or less lead to a Double Aesop, as Pinkie pointing out at the end how she tried to tell them when they wouldn't listen makes it evident that she did learn the importance of explaining herself properly.

This seems more like a Broken Aesop, since Clueless Aesop is when a show fumbles in teaching harsh subject matter. Pretty sure "listen to your friends" isn't controversial. Don't know what the Double Aesop paragraph is trying to say though.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Jun 20th 2020 at 4:50:10 PM

Can Undermined By Reality examples be brought here, since it's pretty much an Aesop trope but it's for trivia?

Edited by PlasmaPower on Jun 20th 2020 at 8:36:58 AM

Man this is quite an inactive page...

Anyways, I’m going to try to write a Broken Aesop entry for Recap.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 9 E 21 Daring Doubt. Does it count if you have to consider the previous episodes or not?

• Broken Aesop: The episode’s lesson is supposed to be that you should listen to both sides of the story, and that you should listen to them. However, this falls apart when the previous episodes are taken into consideration: Daring Do would’ve had no reason to listen to the other side, considering the unambiguously bad stuff Caballeron and Ahuizotl have done to her, like trying to ruin her reputation or killing her.

Here’s Don't Shoot the Message for the YMMV page.

• Don't Shoot the Message: Many fans actually like the episode’s aesop of listening to both sides. However, they also hate how it is executed here, suddenly changing the motivations of the hero and the villains in an attempt to try to make the aesop seem reasonable.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Jun 23rd 2020 at 2:17:04 PM

I think the problem is that this sort of thing requires some sort of knowledge of the work to really discuss, so if anyone doesn't actually know the work the example is from, they can't respond to posts on this thread.

The Daring Do example is more Undermined By Reality (getting all sides of the story despite the writers ignoring prior stories). Previous cleanup stated it has to contradict it's own happenings, not prior works.

Relating:

• Game of Thrones: A major plot element in the series is the idea of real consequences: big dramatic gestures have thousands of impacts and implications, because people are complicated and will respond in equally dramatic ways. Joffrey's execution of Ned triggering the War of the Five Kings is probably the most notable example, and another is the Red Wedding as a result of Robb disrespecting the Frey family. Then Cersei in the sixth season blows up the Sept, killing the heads of a powerful and popular noble house and the high priests of the main state religion while already being a deeply unpopular and fairly-illegitimate ruler... and receives essentially no meaningful consequences as a result. She rules for two straight seasons after with no real problems, and when she's finally deposed, it's because of circumstances that had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

By what if any logic are later seasons allowed to count? (Because the Aesop was delivered over multiple episodes as opposed to a standalone lesson?) This would help decide if the Daring Doubt example is legit.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 26th 2020 at 7:34:11 AM

Found this on YMMV.Doom Annihilation:

Thanks for warning me, because this is totally something that I was planning on doing...

Edited by Primis on Jul 2nd 2020 at 2:44:23 AM

That's Fantastic Aesop if it's presented as a legitimate aesop, and not a trope if it isn't.

Edited by Serac on Jul 2nd 2020 at 5:43:42 AM

On a related note: am I the only one who gets a very aggravated, whiny vibe from the description of Fantastic Aesop?

Haven't seen the movie, but considering that they put it under "accidental", it's probably not presented like an aesop.

Questions about the following:

Clueless Aesop

• Magic Gift Of The Snow Man: Oh boy. The special tries to teach kids that positive thinking and being happy will solve your problems away. While it's not a bad thing, pressuring this isn't going to make things better.

Would this fit Fantastic Aesop or Space Whale Aesop better? It doesn't explain how the work is held beck from effectively presenting the Aesop. Or does it not have the context to fit either (as written it's complaining about an unrealistic Aesop as opposed to it's flaws)?

Lost Aesop

• "One Bad Apple" is so clumsy with its intended messages of "standing up to a bully makes you a bully as well" and "telling an adult is the solution to being bullied" that it makes one wonder if some of the cast or crew secretly disagreed with them. In the climax of the episode, almost immediately after the Crusader's epiphany that they should have told an adult, Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon pop up and begin bullying them right in front of Applejack who does nothing other than frown, effectively negating aesop number one. Then Babs Seed gets in their faces and intimidates them into leaping back in fear and landing in the mud, effectively solving the current bullying issue by standing up to them and negating aesop number two.

This is redundant with Broken Aesop, which applies to many other examples (also redundant with Clueless Aesop). My impression is that Lost Aesop is for when the Aesop is ignored or contradicted in later installments, but the Lost Aesop page is unclear and convoluted noting the trope is about the Aesop being unclear and convoluted which is not the case for this and many other examples. I was planning a cleanup because it looks like a catch all for complaining about mishandling of Aesops such the intended definition is unclear. Thought?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jul 19th 2020 at 12:57:55 PM

Does "Alternate Aesop Interpretation" still count if it appears it could have been intentional? I was thinking of the My Little Pony episode "Read it and Weep": the officially stated Aesop is "Reading is awesome", but considering the actual events it could just as easily be interpreted as "Don't be afraid to do what you love because of preconceived notions of what someone like you 'should' be doing". Which sounds very much like a nod to their adult fans.

And speaking of My Little Pony, I was wondering if maybe its "Warp That Aesop" page could use a "Fan Works" section - I had some good ones for Snowdrop.

Edited by DoctorWTF on Jul 19th 2020 at 2:21:35 AM

I think they both can be valid aesop.

Recap.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 2 E 3 Lesson Zero

• Lost Aesop: While the other ponies learn that they should take their friends' worries seriously even if they think the concern is trivial, Twilight Sparkle doesn't seem to have learned (or at least doesn't say she has learned) not to let trivial concerns get the better of her. On the other hand, the Aesop is mentioned alongside the former in their letter to Celestia, while not by Twilight herself, she is among those making it at the time, implying she agrees with it. It would explain however why the Aesop was repeated in Twilight's next spotlight episode, which she definitely gets the jist of that time.

This example seems to be arguing with itself. What do I do with it?

Also, don't we have an Aesop trope for when the work seems to be setting up for one Aesop and then suddenly switches to another that it settles into? Bait And Switch Aesop perhaps?

Edited by PlasmaPower on Jul 22nd 2020 at 1:28:30 PM

See my question about Lost Aesop here.

Cut as it never intended to make an Aesop about not overreacting. That's another problem I have with it, it assume a work is trying to make an Aesop about something which it may not be. Indecisive Deconstruction devolved into complaining and was cut for that reason.

This was added to Clueless Aesop:

• There was an animated story in Yo Gabba Gabba! about anthropomorphized drops of water and oil who live in towns across from one another. They are separated by a line in the middle of a road and they are not allowed to mix with one another. Now, the story looks like it's heading towards a Green Aesop when an oil drop runs across the road and collides with a water drop. But the story focuses on how together they make a pretty rainbow. And then all the oil and water drops start playing together. The message was supposed to be "it's wonderful when people who are different play together", but unfortunately children will probably interpret it as "go ahead and pour oil in the sink/bathtub/etc. to make pretty rainbows". Also, oil and water are not well-known for mixing together. It (hopefully) should be blatantly obvious that generally oil should not be in water.

Would this be an example of Lost Aesop?

• Game of Thrones: A major plot element in the series is the idea of real consequences: big dramatic gestures have thousands of impacts and implications, because people are complicated and will respond in equally dramatic ways. Joffrey's execution of Ned triggering the War of the Five Kings is probably the most notable example, and another is the Red Wedding as a result of Robb disrespecting the Frey family. Then Cersei in the sixth season blows up the Sept, killing the heads of a powerful and popular noble house and the high priests of the main state religion while already being a deeply unpopular and fairly-illegitimate ruler... and receives essentially no meaningful consequences as a result. She rules for two straight seasons after with no real problems, and when she's finally deposed, it's because of circumstances that had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

This is currently under Broken Aesop, which was argued against when I brought it up. (Broken has been stated elsewhere not to apply when later installments contradict the Aesop.) Thoughts?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jul 29th 2020 at 12:13:30 PM

So, what does an aesop that's just plain bad like the "So, basically, not being a Christian makes you retroactively "evil", while being a Christian gives you the right to belittle/discriminate Non-Christians? What." example from God Is Dead example go under? It's not broken by in story logic, it's not clueless because those require the aesop to be potentially valid, and it's certainly not hard truth. I would suggest Warp That Aesop, but the intro states that's for deliberately making aesops sound much worse than they really are or inventing absurd ones off the top of your head, not listing actually existing terrible aesops from works made by clueless schmucks who actually thought these would be good to learn when they are clearly not. Where do these terrible "lessons" get listed under? They have to go somewhere, complaining about bad lessons is one of our favorite things to do. Audience-Alienating Premise perhaps?

Edited by HarleyQuinnIsGreat on Aug 13th 2020 at 8:23:34 AM

Uh. That's admittedly probably true, but it's certainly not how the site is supposed to be.