Discussion History Recap / GameOfThronesS8E4TheLastOfTheStarks

* BrokenAesop: Harlan becomes considerably less sympathetic if you buy into the view that billionaire (or millionaire) charity is not a sign of good character but a means of control. Harlan paid for his lazy children\\\'s habits and then proceeded to cut them off at the last portion of their life with no real plans to gradually ease them off or help them find better means. As such, he comes off as someone who lords over his family and is every bit as corrupt. The fact he \\\"earned\\\" the money doesn\\\'t necessarily mean that he\\\'s entitled to it since he\\\'s just the beneficiary of the same system he deplores.

Firstly, the movie itself directly addresses the means of control and lords it over his family points. There is a reasonably lengthy monologue where Harlan ruefully muses that his support for his children has instead smothered them and he has, consciously or not, kept them under his control instead of allowing them to develop their own independent lives. It is hardly a BrokenAesop if the movie is clearly arguing that such a state of affairs is not a good thing to begin with, especially if this is done through the character \\\'\\\'the example is complaining about\\\'\\\' acknowledging this.

Secondly, the movie also suggests (albeit in a blink and you\\\'ll miss it fashion) that Harlan is not intending to just cut his kids off without providing at least some kind of cushion or giving them some chance to prepare for it. When he fires Walt, he tells him that they will discuss it further the next day (or something along those lines), which heavily suggests that he is planning to work out some kind of severance package for him. We also clearly see him give Joni fair warning that she and Meg are not going to be getting any more money from him, and the one person to whom all this comes as a total surprise to -- Linda -- is also the one person who is wealthy by her own means and so does not need his inheritance anyway. While I can see how this one is easy to miss, the movie does seem to be suggesting that Harlan would have made moves to ensure that his family would have been eased into their new circumstances (or at least was not planning to suddenly cast them into poverty) had, you know, he not been rather suddenly killed. This seems to be more a function that Harlan is the sudden victim of a murder mystery rather than a flaw on his part or a mixed message of the movie.

And I have no idea where the whole stuff about how Harlan does not rightfully own his fortune just because he earned it comes from to begin with. Leaving aside the fact that this seems a bit questionable outside of a strict/hardcore Marxist ideological approach, the movie in and of itself clearly makes the case that being a SelfMadeMan is preferable to just sponging off your wealthier relatives. While the whole idea of the SelfMadeMan itself might nevertheless be challengeable from a Marxist critical perspective, the point of a BrokenAesop is that the story is mangling its own message, not just that the troper in question disagrees with the movie from an ideological standpoint. And in this case, say what you will about the message itself, the movie seems to be fairly consistent about it.

In short, I do not think this example belongs, and if it does it needs to be drastically reworked. At present, it just seems to be EntryPimping to grind an axe about how Harlan is the real meanie without much to support it from the movie itself.

* BrokenAesop: Harlan becomes considerably less sympathetic if you buy into the view that billionaire (or millionaire) charity is not a sign of good character but a means of control. Harlan paid for his lazy children\\\'s habits and then proceeded to cut them off at the last portion of their life with no real plans to gradually ease them off or help them find better means. As such, he comes off as someone who lords over his family and is every bit as corrupt. The fact he \\\"earned\\\" the money doesn\\\'t necessarily mean that he\\\'s entitled to it since he\\\'s just the beneficiary of the same system he deplores.

Firstly, the movie itself directly addresses the means of control and lords it over his family points. There is a reasonably lengthy monologue where Harlan ruefully muses that his support for his children has instead smothered them and he has, consciously or not, kept them under his control instead of allowing them to develop their own independent lives. It is hardly a BrokenAesop if the movie is clearly arguing that such a state of affairs is not a good thing to begin with, especially if this is done through the character \\\'\\\'the example is complaining about\\\'\\\' acknowledging this.

Secondly, the movie also suggests (albeit in a blink and you\\\'ll miss it fashion) that Harlan is not intending to just cut his kids off without providing at least some kind of cushion or giving them some chance to prepare for it. When he fires Walt, he tells him that they will discuss it further the next day (or something along those lines), which heavily suggests that he is planning to work out some kind of severance package for him. We also clearly see him give Joni fair warning that she and Meg are not going to be getting any more money from him, and the one person to whom all this comes as a surprise to -- Linda -- is also the one person who is wealthy by her own means and so doesn\\\'t need his inheritance. While I can see how this one is easy to miss, the movie does seem to be suggesting that Harlan would have made moves to ensure that his family would have been eased into their new circumstances had, you know, he not been rather suddenly killed. This seems to be more a function that Harlan is the sudden victim of a murder mystery rather than a flaw on his part or a mixed message of the movie.

And I have no idea where the whole stuff about how Harlan does not rightfully own his fortune just because he earned it comes from to begin with. Leaving aside the fact that this seems a bit questionable outside of a strict/hardcore Marxist ideological approach, the movie in and of itself clearly makes the case that being a SelfMadeMan is preferable to just sponging off your wealthier relatives. While the whole idea of the SelfMadeMan itself might nevertheless be challengeable from a Marxist critical perspective, the point of a BrokenAesop is that the story is mangling its own message, not just that the troper in question disagrees with the movie from an ideological standpoint. And in this case, say what you will about the message itself, the movie seems to be fairly consistent about it.

In short, I do not think this example belongs, and if it does it needs to be drastically reworked. At present, it just seems to be EntryPimping to grind an axe about how Harlan is the real meanie without much to support it from the movie itself.

* BrokenAesop: Harlan becomes considerably less sympathetic if you buy into the view that billionaire (or millionaire) charity is not a sign of good character but a means of control. Harlan paid for his lazy children\\\'s habits and then proceeded to cut them off at the last portion of their life with no real plans to gradually ease them off or help them find better means. As such, he comes off as someone who lords over his family and is every bit as corrupt. The fact he \\\"earned\\\" the money doesn\\\'t necessarily mean that he\\\'s entitled to it since he\\\'s just the beneficiary of the same system he deplores.

Firstly, the movie itself directly addresses the means of control and lords it over his family points. There is a reasonably lengthy monologue where Harlan ruefully muses that his support for his children has instead smothered them and he has, consciously or not, kept them under his control instead of allowing them to develop their own independent lives. It is hardly a BrokenAesop if the movie is clearly arguing that such a state of affairs is not a good thing to begin with, especially if this is done through the character \\\'\\\'the example is complaining about\\\'\\\' acknowledging this.

Secondly, the movie also suggests (albeit in a blink and you\\\'ll miss it fashion) that Harlan is not intending to just cut his kids off without providing at least some kind of cushion or giving them some chance to prepare for it. When he fires Walt, he tells him that they will discuss it further the next day (or something along those lines), which heavily suggests that he is planning to work out some kind of severance package for him. We also clearly see him give Joni fair warning that she and Meg are not going to be getting any more money from him, and the one person to whom all this comes as a surprise to -- Linda -- is also the one person who is wealthy by her own means and so doesn\\\'t need his inheritance. While I can see how this one is easy to miss, the movie does seem to be suggesting that Harlan would have made moves to ensure that his family would have been eased into their new circumstances had, you know, he not been rather suddenly killed. This seems to be more a function that Harlan is the sudden victim of a murder mystery rather than a flaw on his part or a mixed message of the movie.

And I have no idea where the whole stuff about how Harlan does not rightfully own his fortune just because he earned it comes from to begin with. Leaving aside the fact that this seems a bit questionable outside of a strict/hardcore Marxist ideological approach, the movie in and of itself clearly makes the case that being a SelfMadeMan is preferable to just sponging off your wealthier relatives. While the whole idea of the SelfMadeMan itself might nevertheless be challengeable from a Marxist critical perspective, the point of a BrokenAesop is that the story is mangling its own message, not just that the troper in question disagrees with the movie from an ideological standpoint. And in this case, say what you will about the message itself, the movie seems to be fairly consistent about it.

In short, I do not think this example belongs, and if it does it needs to be drastically reworked. At present, it just seems to be more EntryPimping to grind an axe about how Harlan is the real meanie without much to support it from the movie itself.

To be honest I find this one unconvincing.