Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=80796&type=att
This is commonly misused, and we're trying to repair and possibly rename it to something like "Hard Truth Aesop".
it is a bad aesop, imo. which means it's not a fit for Family-Unfriendly Aesop. cut.
Migrated to Chloe Jessica!
Would Broken Aesop work in this case?
“Now! Let us engage in the art of deduction!”
^That more of a badly handled aesop. Like how hitting is Bad but having a character who does get hit and the narrative portraying as they deserve it.
Edited by WhirlRX
Seems more like Unfortunate Implications, but we need a citation for that.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
^That might be the closest thing. But i haven't watched the show to get a good idea. Plus, its South Park so whether or not they were serious in a Both Sides Have a Point .
Edited by WhirlRX
^^ Clueless is when the nature of the work (themes, genre, conventions, censorship) prevent it from properly conveying said Aesop. Doesn't sound like the case as is. Critical Research Failure might be the trope here, but that has it's own misuse and debate. Unfortunate Implications would be the best fit if we find citations.
Also, from Family-Unfriendly Aesop:
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire shows Hermione creating a society to protest the servitude of the House Elves, as they are slaves to Wizards. However, the end result is that the elves like to work for human wizards and most view payment as an insult. This was meant to be a more traditional aesop of "Don't project your own values and morality on cultures that operate quite differently", something Rowling had seen with well-intentioned but misguided activists who tried to "rescue" people from things they actually liked, but it comes off this way due to having a Slave Race who likes it (within limits — they don't like being abused by their masters). Given that many real-life slaves have in the past been portrayed this way, it comes off as very wrong for many.
If the basis of the complaint is the handling of the Aesop as opposed to the intended Aesop, I don't think it's this trope.
- "One Bad Apple" has Babs Seed getting away with bullying the Cutie Mark Crusaders because she was also bullied in her hometown of Manehattan. When we find out why Babs has been picking on the CMC, we get An Aesop that "standing up to a bully will make you a bully as well".
An Aesop against partaking in the cycle of cruelly (the problem was the CMC's retribution didn't come of as bad as Babs' bullying) seems less Family-Unfriendly than the Aesop of "fighting back against bullies in self-defense doesn't make you as bad even if you face consequences". (the CMC's weren't acting in self defense or the notion it would cause Babs to stop, just payback, but the fact so many fans missed that...) It's also under Broken, Clueless, and Lost Aesop, so it sounds like the problem is handling and not the intended message.
Should the be cut or are we waiting to agree on a cleanup?
None of those seem like proper examples of Family-Unfriendly Aesop to me. I'd say cut them.
I’d say cut them.
If these tropes attract so much misuse, we could make an aesop cleanup thread.
“Now! Let us engage in the art of deduction!”
That sounds like an excellent idea.
South Park S 23 E 3 Shots has a misuse of Family-Unfriendly Aesop.
Its treating as this aesop is bad instead of its a valid aesop but Unconventional.