The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Does this trope really belong under Purity Personified?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus. Hide / Show Replies
Why? We have several listed examples that while fulfilling the trope's actual qualifications, are most definitely not Purity Personified. One Piece's Zoro and Smoker, Watchmen's Rorschach, Batman, Wolverine, The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, Street Fighter's Zangief, God Of War's Kratos, Miss Grotke from Recess, Fowlmouth from Tiny Toon Adventures... The list goes on.
The point is: You don't have to be Purity Personified to qualify for this trope, and thus Friend to All Children is not really a Sub-Trope of Purity Personified.
Edited by MarqFJA Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I think you're looking at it wrong. You don't have to be Purity Personified to be a Friend to All Children, but you do need to be a Friend to All Children to be Purity Personified.
Its the old "all chihuahuas are dogs, but not all dogs are chihuahuas" argument. You're just getting the order of operation mixed up.
No, I am not looking at it wrong. Yes, Friend to All Children is a requirement for Purity Personified unless Pure Is Not Good is in play (and I already knew that, BTW), but being a requirement does not make it a Sub-Trope. Friend to All Children would belong better under the "Tropes that often invoke this" list rather than the Sub-Trope list.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I do not agree with this part: "Characters who don't like kids are usually villains or at least anti-heroic. We don't say that they love kids because that is something else entirely..." Bearing in mind that many examples are antiheroic. Examples:
- Nicholas D. Wolfwood
- Alexander Anderson (Heroic Sociopath)
- Sagara Sousuke (Heroic Sociopath)
- Hellboy
- Rorschach (Heroic Sociopath)
- Batman (Anti-Hero Disney or Type III)
- Midgnither (Heroic Sociopath)
- Marv (Heroic Sociopath)
- Dexter (Heroic Sociopath)
- Dr house (Anti-Hero Type III)
That's why this troper said "at least antiheroic". Characters that don't like kids are usually portrayed as villainous with "antiheroic" being a step down from villainous. The point of this trope is to establish that a character is good or to emphasize the "Hero" in Anti-Hero by showing that she/he has a soft spot for kids.
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
I dunno, we also have Jean Luc Picard, a character who doesn't like kids, but is moral to a fault. A character who doesn't like kids might simply be a sort of professional, and what they can't stand about children is how unpredictable and uncontrollable they are. Most kid hating heroes are, however, at least grumpy even when they're not anti-heroes.
It's also worth noting that while it's a convenient sound-bite "We don't say that they love kids because that is something else entirely..." is inaccurate as far as I know, I can think of number of media I consumed which have described a character as "loving" kids and it's always been meant in a platonic sense. If no-one has any objections, I'm remove or change that line.
I don't know about Jesus for the page image. Sure, Jesus was a friend to children... but he was kind of... y'know... Jesus. Singling out that one particular aspect seems a bit oddly specific. Someone like Fred Rogers would be a better choice as he's more well known for this trait in particular.
Hide / Show Replies
True. However I think a better image would be a scary-looking Badass playing with some kids (or holding a rescued child while the corpses of bad guys lie in the background) with a caption like "Sociopath? Hell yeah. Heroic? The kids think so."
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
My Namesakes
Kersey475: Someone should add a Laconic entry for this trope (this troper would do it himself, but he doesn't know how). The laconic entry should read something along the lines of "Anyone who likes kids can't be all that bad."
Edited by Kersey475 "Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
I'm not sure Vladimir Lenin should be included in the Real Life Examples section, considering his role in the death of Alexei Nikolaevich.
Leon Trotsky believes that it was Lenin's orders. According to Wikipedia, he wrote in his diary the following:
"My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Yekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov I asked in passing, "Oh yes and where is the Tsar?" "It's all over," he answered. "He has been shot." "And where is his family?" "And the family with him." "All of them?" I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise. "All of them," replied Yakov Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply. "And who made the decision?" I asked. "We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances."
While it is possible that Yakov Sverdlov was behind the execution, it is equally possible that Vladimir Lenin was behind it. An investigation by the Investigative Committee of Russia came back inconclusive.
But the thing is, even if Lenin didn't order the execution the fact that he allowed those who did order it to go unpunished (and didn't even seem upset) seems like it would disqualify him or at least qualify as a trope subversion. The trope description says:
"Overlaps with Wouldn't Hurt a Child, as characters who fit this trope not only are reluctant to injure children, but would go out of their way to protect children if it was necessary."
He didn't really go out of his way to protect Alexei Nikolaevich (who was 13 year old and completely innocent), and didn't lift a finger to punish the boys murders (Yakov Yurovsky went on to hold a pristigous position and Yakov Sverdlov died peacefully in his sleep).
At the very least, we should make a mention of it.
Edited by Timjames98