This is the official thread for Values Dissonance, Deliberate Values Dissonance, Fair for Its Day, and Values Resonance. A 20-year waiting period has been placed on the “values” tropes, due to various misuse and shoehorning.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 5th 2023 at 9:07:15 AM
Best Smile
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
If you're talking about the promotions, then not even that cutoff seems to have been met yet.
Edited by ASghhrv6ub on Jan 24th 2023 at 7:05:26 AM
I am the one, I am the one, the godlike terror train, superior artificial brain, feel free to call me Blaine
"Can you see what I see?"
Is it possible that the Lego Island example could be reworked into an example of Deliberate Values Dissonance? It still doesn't seem indicative of any real-world values.
Edited by JankyKong on Jan 25th 2023 at 10:13:59 AM
Ever wanted to see the most inexplicably horrifying intro to a game ever?
the Retromancer
- Pet Shop of Horrors runs into a lot of values dissonance, as many of its episodes have an odd, twisted kind of moral to them. They often come off as Count D being a bloodthirsty bastard rather than an Aesop-dispenser. Sometimes, it's unclear if this is dissonance between Western and Japanese values, Count D's and the other characters' values, or the readers' and the mangaka Akino's values. But in most cases, we're clearly supposed to find Count D's values unconventional and shocking.
- A good example is one episode where the man who has "vengeance" visited on him is implied throughout to have murdered his wife by pushing her over the railing of a cruise ship. Turns out she jumped, because she overheard him talking to the woman he was actually in love with. It seems that she was a huge bitch who always had to have whatever she wanted, and she decided she wanted him and railroaded him into it. She became "heartbroken" at their words and killed herself. The story still seems to treat him as if he's to blame, and his fate is treated as a Karmic Death.
- Things get really weird in Pet Shop of Horrors: Tokyo, which starts blatantly imposing the "rules" of the animal kingdom directly on to humans. Take the first story, "Domestic": A victim of domestic violence dies, but it's treated as a happy ending by Count D because she protected her son. The pet the woman gets is not to save her, but to ensure that she fulfills her role as a woman and mother: defending her young to the last. The Count has no remorse for his actions, basically sending her to her death, because that is apparently Nature's Way. It becomes increasingly difficult to tell if this is a strategy to dehumanize the Count after he becomes notably more compassionate in the first series (which would be in-universe Values Dissonance), or whether Akino herself supports this view. Men don't get off lightly either — see "Double-Booking".
- Also, our very first introduction to Count D in the manga chapter "Dream": Angelique's actions were no doubt seen as selfish and overly emotional to a Japanese audience, but to Americans she seemed to be motivated by love for her pet, and her punishment came across as over-the-top cruel. Yes, she broke the rules. But even if she hadn't, her bird would still have been eviscerated, and Count D never even warned her.
The other two sound like Unintentionally Unsympathetic and are also speculating if they count.
The last one unsure about.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Best Smile
The last one seems valid, but personally I think it could use a little more context. The second could count if the original audience agreed that the husband was to blame. Agree that the third possibly falls better under some other trope as I can't think on any value that it could be reflecting. I'm honestly not fully sure of what the first example is even trying to say.
Found this on Inferno Larry Nivenand Jerry Pournelle:
- The constant conflict between the strict Christian morals demonstrated in Hell and Carpent(i)er's modern, secular values (probably also those of the authors) lead him to conclude that God Is Evil. However, the fact that most people nowadays are uncomfortable with the concept of infinite damnation for finite sins leads to that anyone in Hell can escape if they can get over themselves enough to seek redemption. Even if their punishment involves complete immobility or vigilant guards. Then again, there seem to be souls whose duty is to guide others, including Benny - and ultimately Carpenter himself.
- Dante's Inferno was also based on older concepts. The sequel is post Vatican 2, and thus deals with it very differently in dealing with the values dissonance.
- The guards almost never stop anyone from going deeper into hell, as very few believe anything exists down there but worse punishments. And the sequel has Carpenter dealing with the people that are trapped and immobile, trying to prove to himself that his idea that anyone can leave is correct.
- The middle ring of the seventh circle is the Wood of Suicides in Dante's Inferno, with a sideline in punishing the "violently wasteful" (profligate). Now, the wood is gone and the profligate are far more numerous. (Examples in Strawman Political).
- One to readers of this day and age: Carpenter, who died in the 70s, protests when he sees a woman included in the circle of the rapists. Modern readers, who've come to see rape as a crime without gender, will probably throw the book into a wall at that point.
As its flat out stated that a large part of the point of the whole story is contrasting the traditional values of Dante's inferno with more modern values, shouldn't everything except the last point be moved to the main page under Deliberate Values Dissonance.
Also the last point probably needs to rewritten.
Only the last is Values Dissonance. None of the first four are Deliberate Values Dissonance either.
I mainly fix indentation issues
From YMMV.My Girl:
- Values Dissonance:
- There are scenes in which Thomas J states that he's "allergic to everything" and ends up mocked for it; nowadays, making fun of somebody for being allergic to many things would be cited as a form of bullying. And of course, the film wants to drive home the fact that venom allergies are no fucking joke, a notion that still had some hangers-on at the time of the film's release. ►The example itself admits that the film considers allergies as something very serious. It clearly does not condone making fun of someone for it.
- When Vada tells Thomas J about her dad and Shelly getting engaged and finding out that he's gotten Shelly a ring, Thomas J assumes it's a decoder ring to which Vada calls Thomas a retard. Younger viewers in the 21st century might go bug-eyed at that, since it'll seem like a young child being incredibly casually ableist and using a slur, but both at the time of the film's release (1991) and the era it's set in (the 1970s) "retard" was still very common shorthand slang and wasn't seen as a slur as such (and was used by kids all the time) and "retardation" was still accepted medical terminology. The 90s were the very decade when attitudes began to change substantially, but the film just barely precedes that. ►This is fine
- There's also a deliberate use of the trope: during the 4th of July cookout, Shelly's ex-husband Danny stops by the house and insults Vada for her unconventional name, which Vada utters a comeback fornote . The 1970s were the start of really wide name variety thanks to all those Sixties Babies; even in '91, never mind the new century, nobody would really care, but it would've been of note circa 1970. ►Sounds weird, I don't think it's related to values. However, I am not sure.
The second example is valid but doesn't need to be written in that shrieking manner. These days we are more aware of the harm done by the casual usage of slurs, but that doesn't mean people — especially children — have stopped using them.
Rally: Okay thank you. I can't make the edits myself so could someone else please do so.
Showtime!
Also "retard" was widely used by preteens and teens well into the late 00's-New Tens. (Source: I am autistic and was a preteen and teen in the Late 00's-New Tens)
Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?
I mainly fix indentation issues
Well, then I can edit it a bit to make it look like this:
- When Vada tells Thomas J about her dad and Shelly getting engaged and finding out that he's gotten Shelly a ring, Thomas J assumes it's a decoder ring to which Vada calls Thomas a retard. Younger viewers in the 21st century might go bug-eyed at that, but both at the time of the film's release (1991) and the era it's set in (the 1970s) "retard" was still very common shorthand slang and wasn't seen as a slur as such and "retardation" was still accepted medical terminology.
But what about the other two, should I cut it?
EDIT: ![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
That works better.
Edited by SoyValdo7 on Jan 30th 2023 at 9:58:01 AM
Valdo
No longer active.
Regarding that rewrite, it could use some tweaking:
- While explaining that her dad and Shelly got engaged, Vada mentions that he got her a ring. Thomas J assumes it's a decoder ring, which Vada responds to by calling Thomas J a retard. Both at the time of the film's release (1991) and during the period it's set in (1972), "retard" was a commonplace insult derived from "mental retardation," which was still accepted medial terminology. However, decades later, "retard" is widely considered an ableist slur, and "mental retardation" has been accordingly phased out in favor of "intellectual disability."
I found this on YMMV.The Prince Of Egypt.
- Applicability: A major reason for the film's continued popularity. Compared to most other depictions of the life of Moses, The Prince of Egypt places noticeable emphasis on the political and moral aspects of his struggle to free the Hebrews from slavery, portraying him as a man who takes up a crusade against social injustice after being awoken to his own privilege and forced to confront his nation's past crimes. For obvious reasons, many young people find his story very relatable, seeing parallels with a variety of social causes in the modern world.
RJ Savoy
It's a faithful adaptation of a story that is some 2300 years old, so shouldn't the entry go under the Bible instead of the film? But either way, I don't see that "free your people from slavery" or Conflicting Loyalties are any more relevant today then they would have been to Hebrew audiences.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I mean, the story obviously took some creative liberties for the sake of storytelling; like I don't recall the Biblical Moses being a little hooligan who raced chariots in the temple and stirred up trouble, and it's that "spoiled rich boy" personality that he grows out of as he reconsiders his privilege and place in the world. So that might be what the example is trying to say.
Granted, my knowledge of the Biblical story is shaky at best and maybe this is just how he was always portrayed.
Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 6th 2023 at 6:24:21 AM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Yeah, the whole "Spoiled Rich kid who awakens and becomes morally concious" is unique to the movie.
RJ Savoy
It's true that the film gives Moses a more boisterous personality, at least as a teenager, than the Bible does, but it seems to me that this angle of relinquishing privilege is already there. He was raised by a princess, putting him in the highest tier of Egyptian society, then lost that because he saw his people oppressed and attacked a slave-driver, had to flee to the desert and there received his vision.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
No, IIRC he always knew he was Hebrew, there was no change of heart in the Bible.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Perhaps more importantly tho: do people actually read the Biblical story and react that way? No matter how faithful the adaptation, it's wrong to attribute reactions to a work people aren't reacting to.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
No longer active.
I know that Moses has long been a popular Biblical figure among Black communities thanks to his whole arc of freeing his enslaved people from an oppressive empire, so that's at least one group who saw the original scripture as resonant centuries later.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I'm not disputing that, but the example we have isn't about that; it's broader than that and doesn't seem to be about seeking freedom, moreso than it's about pushing for social change and overcoming privilege. And that's the reaction I was talking about.
Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 7th 2023 at 7:11:09 AM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
That's really nice but kinda not relevant, because what the entry argued is more people seemingly born privileged come to learn about their roots and becoming morally concious as a result.
Edited by AegisP on Feb 7th 2023 at 4:10:57 AM
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Should I reword the example to be more clear about why the film is appreciated today?
I am kinda dumb so I am the last person you should be asking but the trope is being misused here. It's not about explaining what makes the movie resonate with people just whether the trope is being used or not. But you can indeed put such an example but under a different trope.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
What about Fair for Its Day? Its cutoff is 15 years.
Kirby is awesome.