Discussion Main / CluelessAesop

Agree

I have no idea either.

I don't know either. The trope description mentions that allegories can lead to Clueless Aesops if the work introduces issues that undercut the applicability — and that seems to be the case here.

Right — which is why I added it back in.

I do apologise for my manner in that post. I had re-read the comic a couple of days before stumbling upon the post. I did react out of turn, and again, I'm sorry for that With regards to "Aesop relevant to real life" compared to "default Space Whale Aesop".

" However, there's nothing in any superhero story which states they are NOT supposed to be relevant to real life and, in fact, they often have the indirect goal of having some sort of political or ideological message the audience is supposed to take away" The story is meta-commentary on then-recent industry trends. That's the message. Heroes who kill. Those happy with collateral damage if they get their guy. The ones who are plastered over the 90s anti-hero page on this Wiki. This involves using the UN, who address the state Superman left the world moving towards and the actions he takes to correct it. However, all of these actions involve the two types of superheroes. Not world politics, socio-politics etc. It's a commentary on the industry's older style, and what it was moving towards and how everything spiralled because of how those characters behave. That a superhero story *can* directly be about politics applicable to real life is fine, but in this sense, the intended commentary is cut and dry. By default, any story that looks at whether x type of hero or anti-hero is better than the other is a Space Whale Aesop. The organisations simply don't exist. That also counts for stories in which Wildstorm/The Authority would hypothetically be represented as doing what needs to be done rather than the Justice League. Neither side is applicable to real life because they don't exist. So the priority, and the comic's largest impact, as has been stated and talked about countless times is the deconstruction/criticism (whatever you like) of fictional 90s anti-heroes and resulting trends. It's a look at the things people championed like said characters allowing collateral damage, provoking villains who can level cities etc. To say the moral is "superheroes are needed in real life" and therefore the Aesop is Clueless is disingenous. The main aesop is that championing the themes underlying the characters taking over the industry eroded the superhero genre. Put simply, I feel that ignoring the meta commentary of industry trends (and how those trends would play out in a future DCU) in favour of claiming "it's about whether superheroes are useful in real life" misses the message Waid intended to tell the industry as a whole. I welcome a response and again apologise for my earlier conduct.

Sorry, nevermind.

I accidentally posted this on my friend's account earlier.

You keep stating that because the story has one very overt message that this is THE message, as in the only one it has and could have, but that isn't really how fiction works. There is no rule that states a story only has ONE Aesop and that's all.

Further, just because the exact conditions of the fictional world are not like the real world does not automatically make the story a Space Whale Aesop. A Space Whale Aesop is for when no part of the message, at all, could apply to real life. For instance, Captain America: The Winter Solider had a clear message (as stated by Word of God) about government surveillance and overreach, and that's a lesson that doesn't require giant flying battleships in order to exist. It isn't a Space Whale Aesop, because the core point of the aesop is one that is connected to real life.

As I said, the end of the story is about whether or not superheroes (as in, costumed vigilantes) are what the world needs. The symbolic reason why the Trinity remove their costumes and settle into traditional roles like a Farmer, Doctor and Teacher is because it was the creators' intent to demonstrate that they've learned placing themselves on pedestals above humanity is not the correct way to protect it.

I will point that "three characters removing themselves from a pedestal" doesn't equate to "the entire survivor group and able metahumans have now decided to not put on tights". This would contradict Waid saying that superheroes as a whole aren't needed in universe, if in fact that was what the ending meant. If you can source a quote from Waid or Ross stating that the story is meant as applicable to real life rather than as industry commentary, please do so. However, feel free to re-add the segment. I don't feel like spending much more time om this.

Whoops. Did it again.

As I said, the three of them doing so was symbolic. The implication was that they were representing the new direction that the superhero community should take.

I'm not exactly sure where I saw the interview which stated this, so it's hard for me to come up with a quote which directly confirms it. I'd probably end up having to buy the old TP Bs and hardcovers, which would cost hundreds of dollars and is well out of my price range.

But if you're done with the conversation, I suppose it won't be necessary anyway.

The way I see it the entry should go out, although for a different reason than Doc pointed out. The reason it doesn't qualify as a Clueless Aesop is that "Are superheroes necessary?" isn't really An Aesop in the first place. It's just a plot idea. An Aesop is when the story tries to teach the audience a lesson of some kind. Not every story needs An Aesop, you know. If the story questions whether or not heroes with superpowers are needed within this fictional universe, what is the lesson here that the audience is supposed to learn?

That seems rather obvious.

Either “Yes, the world still needs vigilantes/superheroes” or “No the world doesn’t.”

Or, somewhere in the middle: “Yes, the world needs them, but...”

Which would've been a Fantastic Aesop at best if that was the case. Last time I checked there was no Flying Brick saving people and taking out criminals in the real world. And I don't expect one to appear anytime soon. Even if after reading some comic you'd come to conclusion that "the world would suck/be awesome if superpowered beings were a thing" how can you actually apply this lesson to anything? It may be a deconstruction/reconstruction of a story, trope or genre, but how can something like this be a LESSON for the AUDIENCE? How can you poorly present a lesson to the audience if there is nothing the audience can actually learn in the first place?

Going to copy/paste what I said above:

"...just because the exact conditions of the fictional world are not like the real world does not automatically make the story a Space Whale Aesop. A Space Whale Aesop is for when no part of the message, at all, could apply to real life. For instance, Captain America: The Winter Solider had a clear message (as stated by Word of God) about government surveillance and overreach, and that's a lesson that doesn't require giant flying battleships in order to exist. It isn't a Space Whale Aesop, because the core point of the aesop is one that is connected to real life."

We can sum up the core element of a superhero as "an extraordinary person who fights crime or performs feats of heroism that ordinary people cannot" (my own words). Superheroes don't even need to have superpowers (see: Batman, Kick-Ass) because powers aren't what make a superhero. What makes a superhero is their ability to fight battles that are difficult, if not impossible, for anyone else.

You're comparing apples to oranges. As you yourself pointed out government surveillance doesn't require any fantastic elements. It's a very real issue and using fantastic elements to present it will not change that. That's not the case with what we're talking about. What I said about Flying Bricks also applies to billionaires beating up criminals disguised as nocturnal flying mammals. Technically it's not impossible for Bill Gates to go to a ninja school, buy some toys and go beat up some criminals, but when was the last time you've heard of anything like that happening? The world doesn't HAVE superpowered beings, vigilantes are far and between and those few that exist are 99% of the time nothing like Badass Normal superheroes anyway. No matter how you look at it, "Does the world need superheroes" is NOT something that relates to real life. Take away a superhero from the universe and the question becomes meaningless. Deconstructing the idea of a superhero is a simple plot idea, not a lesson to learn. I'm not arguing whether a fantastic story can or cannot be used to deliver a real lesson. I'm arguing that it's not a lesson here when the subject of the lesson only exists within a fictional universe.

Again, you're being overly specific. The issue isn't Bill Gates using his abilities to go beat up criminals. It's any person using their abilities or resources to perform feats or heroism that other people do not. There are plenty of vigilante groups in real life, including things localized militia groups, and citizen patrols. You have someone like Tom Cruise, whose hobby is to go around rescuing people.

Does the world need extraordinary people that perform acts of heroism is ABSOLUTELY a relevant aesop. A superhero is nothing but a stylized, exaggerated version of that aesop. Just like we don't need literal flying giant battleships to have an aesop about surveillance and government overreach, we don't need costumes or superpowers to have an aesop about exceptional civilians crime-fighting crime or performing heroic feats.

You're the one being overly general. Yes, superheroes can be a metaphor for a wide variety of people and yes, each of these groups individually can be subjected to a question you're asking. but try to combine these two and the message becomes so diluted that it ends up meaningless. At the very beginning of this discussion you've said

"I distinctly remember reading an interview with the creators in which they said that the reason Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman abandon their costumes at the end is because it was symbolic of the concept of a "superhero" being obsolete—that they needed to guide the world as regular people."

Now you're saying

"You have someone like Tom Cruise, whose hobby is to go around rescuing people."

Now let me ask you: What is the message Tom is supposed to get from this action?

I honestly, legitimately have no idea what you're asking me. Are you saying that Real Life people are unable to apply or appreciate the lessons of superhero/vigilante fiction? What apparent contradiction are you trying to point out by showing those two quotes of mine, because I don't see it.

The lesson of Kingdom Come was that extraordinary people need to be careful not to become so self-righteous or extreme in their pursuit of order and justice that they set themselves apart or above the ordinary folk. In this case, the lesson was facilitated by having the three protagonists shed their superhero personas and costumes entirely and guide world through ordinary occupations: Superman becomes a farmer, Batman becomes a doctor, and Wonder Woman become a teacher. The concept of a superhero was "obsolete", or at least impractical.

The problem with this, and the reason it's a Clueless Aesop, is the fact that as a superhero comic book, sold by a company who markets superheroes, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the characters to hold to that standard without also negating DC Comics's profitable IP. This is proven by the fact that KC has several sequels and followups which immediately undo the premise and have the characters take up their superhero mantles again.

What this has to do with anything you asked in that previous reply, I have no idea. I am honestly confused by what you are trying to ask.

• What apparent contradiction are you trying to point out by showing those two quotes of mine, because I don't see it.

The fact that you can't see it IS my point. You've been overgeneralising to the point that you're saying things that individually i agree with, but have little to do with the issue that we were discussing in the first place. My first quote was the action that according to you presents the aesop. The second one was a real-world situation to which according to you the aesop aplies. I asked you to present the connection between them. You couldn't. Thank you for proving my point.

• The lesson of Kingdom Come was that extraordinary people need to be careful not to become so self-righteous or extreme in their pursuit of order and justice that they set themselves apart or above the ordinary folk.

Which is perfectly fine aesop in it's own right. It can be shown using superheroes but still relate to the real world issue. In this you're right, but in the context of our discussion there is one problem. That's NOT what you've been saying until now. "If you have power, be careful not to become a Knight Templar" has nothing to do with necessity or lack of superheroes' existence. What you brought up is a completely different aesop from the one that was being discussed. In fact the only time something remotely similar was brought up was this:

• Kingdom Come was written during a time when the industry was shifting more towards violent anti-hero characters as a whole, with Golden and Silver Age heroes going out of style. Kingdom Come re-contextualises this by showing in-universe consequence for those heroes' actions.

Which was part of the reason for deletion of the original entry.

• To be blunt, you'll have to explain to me how "What is the message Tom Cruise is supposed to get from this action?" has to do with anything we're talking about. You might as well as "what lesson is Donald Trump supposed to get from The Winter Soldier?" Aesops are not targeted specifically at specific people.
• I specifically said that superhero aesops have correlations to the real world, and used The Winter Soldier's anti-surveillance aesop as an example. The aesop of Kingdom Come being "do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people" is ENTIRELY relevant to this discussion when the entire method the story used to show the characters "reconnecting" with ordinary folks is shedding their superhero identities. That is a lesson which is almost IMPOSSIBLE for a superhero franchise to stick to, because they sell superheroes as a product, which (again) is demonstrated when every sequel immediately undoes that very aesop to continue the story.
• And that reason was incorrect, as I'm attempting to demonstrate.

My original argument was that "Are superheroes necessary?" is not an aesop because there is nothing audience can be taught from the answer, as superheroes are something that only exists within this specific fictional universe. You're saying that superheroes can deliver very real aesops and you're right, and i never questioned it. but the problem is not whether or not it can be done, but whether or not this specific aesop does this, so you bringing up the Winter Soldier for the Nth time brings nothing to discussion.

Your next argument was that superheroes can represent a wide variety of people, and again, you're right. Green Lantern is a cop in space, X-men are a stand-in for opressed minorities, Daredevil represents people with disabilities and so on. But my problem with applying the aesop of "are superheroes necessary" this way is that it requires overgeneralisation to the point where the question loses any meaning. I'll try to put it in simpler terms. The question being an aesop requires Superheroes to be a stand-in for group X. Now whatever the group X is, the question is now "Are X necessary?". If the answer is "no" then the logical follow up is that Kingdom come tries to teach X to stop being X. You've brought up several examples of what X could be, including a guy who helps people as a hobby. Which is why i asked if the lesson is that the guys like him should stop helping people?

• The aesop of Kingdom Come being "do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people" is ENTIRELY relevant to this discussion when the entire method the story used to show the characters "reconnecting" with ordinary folks is shedding their superhero identities.

Again, no. "Do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people" is NOT "Are superheroes, as a concept, necessary". Neither the original entry, nor you up until now, have argued that the aesop is "Do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people". You said that answering the question "are superheroes necessary" is not a means to deliver some aesop, but an aesop itself, which is also what the original entry said. By saying that Kingdom Come's aesop is actually "Do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people", you're basically admiting to both my point that "are superheroes necessary" is not an aesop AND to the original deleter's point that the story is actually a deconstruction of the industrial trend about violent antiheroes. If you really believe that "Do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people" is the true aesop of Kingdom Come, then feel free to propose a rewrite that covers this, then we can discuss it.

• but the problem is not whether or not it can be done, but whether or not this specific aesop does this, so you bringing up the Winter Soldier for the Nth time brings nothing to discussion.
  • I brought it up this time asking why your question about Tom Cruise learning something from Kingdom Come would be any more relevant than the current president learning from a film about government surveillance.
• You've brought up several examples of what X could be, including a guy who helps people as a hobby. Which is why i asked if the lesson is that the guys like him should stop helping people?
  • Your question is answered exactly by how I described the ending. The lesson is, "Yes, use your gifts to help people—but don't place yourself above them while doing so." And, for the "Nth time", KC chose to enforce this aesop by having its lead characters stop being superheroes and help the world as ordinary professionals. The sequels undo this message by having them readopt their superhero identities, because superheroes are a brand that DC sells.
• Again, no. "Do not disconnect yourself from ordinary people" is NOT "Are superheroes, as a concept, necessary".
  • It is in Kingdom Come, because (again) the way that story chose to demonstrate its Aesop is by having the protagonists give up being superheroes. They abandoned the grandiose identities that (the story seems to argue) literally disconnected them from ordinary people while still using their gifts to help others.

• It is in Kingdom Come, because (again) the way that story chose to demonstrate its Aesop is by having the protagonists give up being superheroes. They abandoned the grandiose identities that (the story seems to argue) literally disconnected them from ordinary people while still using their gifts to help others.

No, it's NOT. You're confusing a means of delivering an aesop with the aesop itself. Ask yourself: Is them being superheroes what caused the problem or it IS the problem?

Yes. According to Kingdom Come, it's the SAME THING. The argument the ending makes is that merely creating the identity of the superhero created a wall between the ordinary people and the extraordinary people who protected them. The entire reason they shed their identities in the end is to tear down the wall they caused.

So, are you saying it would be impossible for them to be disconected without their superhero identities? You keep missing the point i'm trying to make so i will ask once again, clearly and if this discussion is to continue, i expect clear answer: Is ditching the costumes a means of delivering the aesop, or is it the aesop itself?

Look, chill with the attitude. I am being clear. What you're asking is irrelevant; in THIS story, the aesop is that creating the grandiose identify of a superhero was a major cause of the disconnect between superhumans and ordinary people. In another story, or another plot, there could be other reasons for it—but that is irrelevant to Kingdom Come.

Are you serious? We're discussing whether or not something is a Clueless Aesop, and me trying to establish what IS the aesop in the first place is irrelevant?

• in THIS story, the aesop is that creating the grandiose identify of a superhero was a major cause of the disconnect between superhumans and ordinary people.

That's the plot, not an aesop, the aesop is the message the story is trying to convey. Does How To Train Your Dragon has a message that the dragons stealing your sheep probably have good reason to? No, that's the plot. The message is that it's better to seek understanding than violence. The dragons are a means of delivering the aesop but they're not the subject of the aesop. You cannot equate the plot with the message. The way you're describing KC it looks like the aesop is that "just because you're more powerful, doesn't mean you should put yourself above others". The fact that superheroes are a means of delivery, or that being a superhero is shown to be a reason for disconect has NOTHING to do with the message itself. Like i've been saying from the beginning: If something can only be an issue within the fictional universe, then it can't be an aesop. So you emphasising that it's an issue within KC means that it can't be a message.

For some reason, you want to split hairs between the "delivery" of an aesop and the aesop itself, which makes no sense. The aesop of KC states that one of the principle elements of the story (that superhero identities exist) is the cause for the main conflict. The main cause of HTTYD was Red Death, and they resolve the bigger problem by killing it. Saying that superhero identities have nothing to do with KC's aesop about humility is like saying Red Death had nothing to do with HTTYD's aesop about understanding. Both were obstacles that had to be removed for the aesop to work; the entire resolution of the story couldn't work if the humans learned about the Red Death and then said "Oh, well, we don't hate you guys anymore, but that's not our problem. Good luck with that, and don't steal our livestock anymore".

Same with KC, the entire aesop falls apart if the protagonists decide that being superheroes (or at least, having such grandiose identities) is what led to the problem, but then they decide to stay (or go back to being) superheroes anyway.

I specifically remember Rafiki saying "Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it or... learn from it. " The whole exchange was about Simba not wanting to face his past.

Even if you take it as "Don't run away from your responsibilities" it's still an Inept Aesop. Simba was actually eager to becoming a new king and only ran away because of an unrelated incident before he even had a chance to face responsibilities. He ran out of guilt, not because he was afraid of his responsibilities. Either way it fits.

I cut it all; here it is if someone who's actually played the game wants to rewrite it:

• But then again, no one's saying ghouls are good, just people who shouldn't be judged by their looks. They should judged because they're assholes like everyone else. Also, doesn't anyone else think that Values Dissonance might set in after a nuclear holocaust?
• The only time you hear about this is in Tenpenny Tower, and everyone inside it is obviously racist towards ghouls. It's entirely possible that they are just wrong. The gunning all of them down for no reason part still isn't justified. Megaton, where Gob makes it clear that he's treated like crap. And the whole Underworld exists is because ghouls would most likely be killed on sight. But other than that, it's not mentioned anywhere else.
  • The Ghoul-racism was horrible in Tenpenny Tower, but it was definitely justified as the residents of Tenpenny are murdered by the ghouls when you choose the Pro-Ghoul (allow the ghouls to slaughter everyone) or Diplomatic options.
  • This troper isn't even sure that this could be considered justified in hindsight. Neither the player (regardless of choice) nor the Tenpenny Tower citizens had any way of knowing this would happen. Also, the ghouls in Megaton and the Ghoul-only city of Underworld never do anything remotely like what happens in Tenpenny Tower.
  • On a completely unrelated note, Tenpenny Tower is owned by a guy who shoots at stuff in the wasteland from the safety of his home for fun and wants to blow up an entire town for no particularly good reason, and he's one of the few non-hostiles that you actually gain karma for killing. And this is in a game where you loose karma for killing complete horse's asses that probably had it coming! And the residents of Tenpenny Tower, just so we're clear, don't like ghouls because they look icky, not because they might kill them because they're sick of trying to buy their way in. So Yeah, everybody kinda sucks.
    • Anyone else find it a little troubling that so many people here are trying to defend the elitist bigots? One of whom wants to blow up a town for shits and giggles? Not that the ghoul leader's any better, but still, people are defending racists, for God's sake! Kinda says something about you, troper...
      • Self-righteous rants aside, there is a very legitimate reason for non-mutated humans to be prejudiced against non-feral ghouls. ANY ghoul could turn feral. Further exposure to radiation in the wastelands causes changes in a ghoul's neurology, turning them feral. The prejudice of the Tenpenny Tower residents is completely justified, as allowing the ghoul community in would, at the very least, be bringing a dozen plus ticking time bombs into their midst. An equivalent situation would be a survivor community in a zombie apocalypse universe denying zombie-bit individuals entrance. Doing so loses them nothing, and prevents the acquisition of a huge liability.
      • It depends what they are defending racists against. In this case the racists are being threatened by an obviously trigger-happy blood-thirsty nut who will, just like his behavior strongly implies, eventually go on a rampage if the racists mend their ways and allow him entry. This does seem to be a bit more than karma calls for, except for Tenpenny.
    • Listening to the underground ghoul leader talk about the humans, he's just as prejudiced. The difference? He's willing to set a pack of feral ghouls on them. Racist and cold blooded killer versus just racist... I'll stick with the lesser of two evils.
      • Well, let's be fair now. The ghouls want to move into Tenpenny Tower. They bring absolutely nothing to the table. They're not going to die if they're left in the wastes. They just want in, and the residents don't want to let them in, and the ghouls are perfectly willing to murder people to get their way. Racism is a red herring in this argument - the ghouls are little better than any other wasteland raiders. The people of the tower are well within their rights to refuse the ghouls.
      • Or you can just kill both Tenpenny and the ghoul leader.
    • It should be noted that there is one non-bigoted Tenpenny Tower resident: Herbert "Daring" Dashwood, who once had a ghoul manservant and has a radio show chronicling their adventures. He is killed in the massacre.
      • In fact, Herbert is almost in tears when he hears that his old ghoul friend died, and he was given the title of "honorary ghoul" by the citizens of Underworld.

I'm not even sure that quest was meant to have an Aesop.

Wrong section.

An image search suggests that it's from Mario Quiz Cards

Here's the card in question◊ if you're curious.

That's definitely true of Family-Unfriendly Aesop but I think Clueless Aesop is pretty judgement-neutral in intent (though lots of the examples clearly missed the intent). It's just supposed to be when the message someone is trying to get across doesn't make sense because properly conveying it requires information considered too controversial (or otherwise off-limits) for the work in question. Like if you wanted to do a story about sexually-transmitted disease on a kids show that wasn't allowed to mention sex. Or doing a story about the dangers of playing with guns on a show that isn't allowed to show death or injury, or on which the only guns that exist are nonlethal stun weapons.