Discussion Main / BabiesMakeEverythingBetter

Pulled these:

None of these suggest "having a baby will solve all your problems" (Earl Sinclair would say quite the reverse on the Dinosaurs example); they're just works that have babies in them.

I don't think we should have a real life folder. It only lists aversions and inversions! It might be better to remove the Real Life folder and label the trope under No Real Life Examples, Please!

In Elf Quest, the reason Nonna might have felt strongly about having children is in primitive societies, every child was precious. Nonna's childlessness was also thrown in her face by the Bone Woman as an very cruel insult. (I'd say 'and vicious', but that's generally covered by other of the insults the Bone Woman was busy spewing.) The Bone Woman wasn't quiet, either; Nonna was shamed in front of most of her mate Adar's tribe for something she couldn't help. (Nonna is also a self-confessed representation of Wendy.)

With the elves, Rainsong had three children within less then 15 years; this was considered incredible. (Word of God, via the first two Elf Quest Gatherums, is that she's a one-woman baby boom because of Madcoil.) Moonshade, on the other hand, bore three children over 500+ years, and while the third was a bit of a surprise, this wasn't considered especially remarkable otherwise. 500 years for three kids... ouch.

I think the end/epilogue of Mockingjay would go well with this trope. After Peeta and Katniss have babies, it seems to mend everything that's wrong - including the aftermath of the war and their own PTSD/personal problems/major psychological and emotional scars - simply by their kids being there.

Adding a passage about it in this trope shortly.

Look, Pacific Mackerel, I kind of get what you're saying. But this trope has already been trimmed from its original, more cynical form (see above). Child Hater is a related trope. Children Raise You is a related trope. Both go some way to explaining why Babies Make Everything Better exists as a trope. The first paragraph links to them for that reason. It is not bitching about the media - it is stating a trend in the media which explains why this trope exists. Being critical is not necessarily bashing something, nor is observing a trend, nor is pointing out why something is unrealistic.

Feel free to post a rebuttal here. For now, I've restored the trope to its original format for the sake of quickness (the logic of the trope doesn't work with the cuts - the whole thing would need to be tweaked). If we can't reach consensus, we'll PM a Mod to referee rather than pursue an Edit War, okay?

It's been a long time since I read the book version of A Clockwork Orange, but in it, Alex De Large's glaring evil nature was magically mended at the end of the story by having a son and waking up to responsibility. This, of course, came off as a complete wall-banger moment.

Not sure how to word it for the trope entry, though.

Cut this:

"Er, yes. Which brings us to the flaw in this trope: Babies, while proof of the miracle of life, are stressful little critters. Even parents who long for children, have attended every prenatal and parenting class within a thousand mile radius, and who are nothing if not well prepared, can find their kids hard going. Babies are totally helpless - they depend on their parents for everything. Which means parents who were formerly the life and soul of the party will have to cut back on the socialising, while workaholics may have to re-evaluate their lives around their kids (at least, the mother will; people in TV-land are much quicker to call out a woman for "abandoning their family" than they are a man). In short, life's gonna change. And that can be tough.

Then there's the nitty-gritty of parenting: sleepless nights, panic attacks over every fever, baby food (which, let's face it, can hardly be called appetizing), puking and dirty diapers. Which most "miracle birth" scenes quickly gloss over.

The real Wallbanger most people will spot however, is when a couple who couldn't be trusted to look after a pet gerbil, let alone a small human, are magically made capable of being model parents at their baby's birth. Female characters who could only be described as "dysfunctional" are suddenly made responsible mothers, while the unreliable bad boy who had a one-night stand with her becomes a model dad. Somewhat ironically, this begets a Family-Unfriendly Aesop: "Relationship in a mess? Boyfriend sleeping with a different girl every night? Have a baby - that'll fix everything!" As anyone with a basic grip on reality will tell you, when your relationship's not on a winning streak, having a child is the last thing you should do. Mature, reliable people can find babies tough enough, even when two partners fully committed to each other are involved - dragging an innocent kid into a volatile relationship is only asking for trouble (and misery for the poor son or daughter, who didn't ask to be dragged into it).

Which is not to say there isn't some Truth in Television in this trope; the most unlikely people can and do make fantastic mums and dads. Additionally, on a biological level, we have evolved to bond with our kids and put their needs first, which can lead to making sacrifices and undertaking responsibilities we never thought we would. In those circumstances, babies really can put life's trivial problems into perspective...but major problems? Clear those up before having the kid - it's not fair to ask someone who's only been in the world for five minutes to sort out all of your angst.

And don't expect people in Real Life to want children just because you think having a child is for everyone - contrary to the trope, people forced into parenthood quite often regret it immensely, and the person hurt the most is the child."

Why? Because it's not about the trope, it's about how the trope is wrong.