[001]
WarJay77
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I just can\'t fathom why the trope \'\'wouldn\'t\'\' emphasize the animal part. Otherwise it\'s just DoesNotLikeShoes- because the species of the character would have no bearing on why the trope is used or how it manifests. There\'s literally no reason to even have BarefootCartoonAnimal if the \
to:
I just can\\\'t fathom why the trope \\\'\\\'wouldn\\\'t\\\'\\\' emphasize the animal part. Otherwise it\\\'s just DoesNotLikeShoes- because the species of the character would have no bearing on why the trope is used or how it manifests. There\\\'s literally no reason to even have BarefootCartoonAnimal if the \\\"Cartoon Animal\\\" part is entirely incidental and not relevant at all to the actual trope.
Like...what\\\'s the trope, if the part about them being animal isn\\\'t meant to be a contributing factor for them being barefoot? If they\\\'d just as easily be a barefoot human with no actual change to how the trope is presented, why is it a different trope?
As for the footwrap part, IDK. I can see it either way, but since something technically is covering the feet I don\\\'t personally consider it barefoot.
Like...what\\\'s the trope, if the part about them being animal isn\\\'t meant to be a contributing factor for them being barefoot? If they\\\'d just as easily be a barefoot human with no actual change to how the trope is presented, why is it a different trope?
As for the footwrap part, IDK. I can see it either way, but since something technically is covering the feet I don\\\'t personally consider it barefoot.
