Thoughts on the trend in meta-thinking...

[Boogastreehouse]

"O-Chul can't kill Xikorn now, because then the story would be over."

"Vaarsuvius had to lose that fight, so Rich fudged his own rules."

"They'll get there when the plot needs them there."

There's always been the occasional speculation on the forums as to how the in-story events under discussion relate to the larger story-telling process. I think it's normal to look beyond the characters and their motivations sometimes, and take a moment to wonder where Rich is eventually headed with all this.

Not so long ago this sort of speculation was relatively infrequent. Lately, though, it seems to me that every thread contains numerous posts citing story-telling reasons for why Character A was defeated by Character B.

While I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to consider the meta-structure of the Giant's storytelling process from time to time, I do feel that the near-constant presence of comments that place more emphasis on the needs of the plot, and less on the importance of the development and motivations of the characters, is really reducing the actual impact of the story.

What I mean to say is that people are so concerned with trying to predict the outcome of events, and fit them together from a story-telling perspective, that I feel that it's becoming easier and easier to loose sight of the fact that we are being told a story.

I think that it's becoming more common to try and wear the clothes of the storyteller; to identify with his thought-processes and to dissect his decisions. We tend to forget that we're supposed to be trying on the clothes of the characters and trying to identify with them and their struggles.

Any thoughts?

[Kish]

While I'm not certain I disagree with you, I am inclined to say that the continuous analysis of each strip as though it were part of a game rather than a story is a bigger problem in any event.

[Boogastreehouse]

While I'm not certain I disagree with you, I am inclined to say that the continuous analysis of each strip as though it were part of a game rather than a story is a bigger problem in any event.

I can see that, although I personally don't find it as detrimental. As a player of D&D, I'm probably biased, though.

[Timberboar]

I blame TV Tropes.

Suddenly everyone thinks they're a storycrafter. :smallbiggrin:

I kid, I kid... :smallwink:

[Raenir Salazar]

except we're SUPPOSED to think of it as part of a game.

[Boogastreehouse]

I blame TV Tropes.

Suddenly everyone thinks they're a storycrafter. :smallbiggrin:

I kid, I kid... :smallwink:

Y'know, I don't think that's such a ridiculous thought. I don't mean this to be a slam, or even to come across as a little snarky (although I've certainly directed my share of snark toward the tropers in the past).

Rather, I'm just making an observation on the way people tend to think, and how it might be changing.

[Blackjackg]

except we're SUPPOSED to think of it as part of a game.

No, it has been explicitly stated (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) that this is not a game. It's a story set in a world whose natural laws are reflective of a game.


I blame TV Tropes.

Suddenly everyone thinks they're a storycrafter. :smallbiggrin:

I kid, I kid... :smallwink:

I recognize that you're kidding, but I choose to take this seriously. I'm internet that way. (I secretly hope that this is the first time anyone has used internet as an adjective, and that it will soon be a popular meme). Some of us are storycrafters, and have never been on TV Tropes.

The fact of the matter is that you can not extricate the development of the plot from the development of the characters. You can not say "the character needs this, but the plot needs that," because they are one and the same. O-Chul can not destroy Xykon, because that would truncate the plot and destroy the arcs of major characters like Roy.

Yes, it would be nice to simply be a passive audience and take every panel at face value. If you can do that, more power to you. Some us can't help but theorize and postulate outcomes from actions, or conclusions to stories. We can't believe obvious red herrings any more than we can believe that CSI caught the right guy on the first try even though we're only halfway through the episode. That's just how storycrafters work. We don't always write about it (A lot of us do. It's internet.), but we're darn sure thinking it.

If Rich is smart (which, clearly, he is!), he'll subvert some of our expectations and give us a few surprises, but he still won't let O-Chul destroy Xykon.

EDIT: A thread called thoughts on meta-thinking. Heh.

[DreadSpoon]

except we're SUPPOSED to think of it as part of a game.

No, we're supposed to think of it as a story about a world in which the D&D mechanics are the natural laws. Rich has explicitly stated that the story comes first, and he'll fudge rules as necessary -- going so far as to mix 4ed rules jokes into an otherwise 3.5ed world (the crack about Elan using Stupidity as a Power Source, for example).

Rules arguments are boring and trite for a comic where the rules are loosely interpreted and frequently broken for the sake of comedy or plot.

However, comments about "good storytelling" are also boring and trite, because good storytelling does not mean that the story has to play out according to some set of literary rules. V getting beaten down by Xykon is a valid resolution to the ultimate arcane power plot. V beating Xykon into dust (but perhaps forgetting the phylactery) and then releasing the spirits would have also been a valid resolution to the ultimate arcane power plot. Xykon stealing the bound souls using trickery could have been a valid resolution, as could Xykon being utterly destroyed and replaced by V, or Redcloak defeating V with Ultimate Divine Power, or any of a thousand other possibilities. The story can go in any direction at any time and still be an engaging narrative.

People who argue the plot consequences by either D&D or literary rules are just being unimaginative.

[DSCrankshaw]

And here I thought most people were sure Xykon wouldn't be destroyed here because there's an explicit prophecy that says he will reach Girard's gate. That's pure in-story reasoning, as the prophecy is part of the story. (Of course, the question the prophecy answered contained the caveat "If...", so there may be a way out.)

As for the rest, well, when you make predictions, of course those predictions are based on the nature of the story being told. In this case a comedic and dramatic fantasy adventure. Knowing that, we're going to make different guesses about who lives and who dies than if this were, say, a zombie survival horror. You expect different things out of a comedy than a tragedy. So I guess this sort of thing doesn't bother me.

[Timberboar]

I recognize that you're kidding, but I choose to take this seriously. I'm internet that way. (I secretly hope that this is the first time anyone has used internet as an adjective, and that it will soon be a popular meme).

I'll do my part to ensure that goes viral.


Some of us are storycrafters, and have never been on TV Tropes.

Which actually segues quite nicely into my second tongue-in-cheek theory --

OOTS is not like (most) other webcomics. It's original design was to appeal to the D&D playing fanbase, and while it has certainly grown beyond that and now appeals to all different sorts of readers, that original core remains a strong part of its following.

And roleplayers live for stories. You'd be hard pressed to find a group of people more familiar with storytelling conventions outside of a writer's convention panel.

It's just who we are. And because this comic calls to our particular form of Geekdom, we're here in more than typical numbers, which gives the impression of an outward shift in thinking.

[PId6]

However, comments about "good storytelling" are also boring and trite, because good storytelling does not mean that the story has to play out according to some set of literary rules. V getting beaten down by Xykon is a valid resolution to the ultimate arcane power plot. V beating Xykon into dust (but perhaps forgetting the phylactery) and then releasing the spirits would have also been a valid resolution to the ultimate arcane power plot. Xykon stealing the bound souls using trickery could have been a valid resolution, as could Xykon being utterly destroyed and replaced by V, or Redcloak defeating V with Ultimate Divine Power, or any of a thousand other possibilities. The story can go in any direction at any time and still be an engaging narrative.

People who argue the plot consequences by either D&D or literary rules are just being unimaginative.
To an extent, true. But there are quite a few things that are very unlikely to happen because of the way the story is structured. For one thing, it's very unlikely that Roy would never be resurrected and just leave the story entirely, since that would be a stupid resolution of the subplot of his death, even though in-story it's perfectly possible.

Likewise we are fairly certain something really dramatic will happen at the end of every book because of precedence and not because of anything within the story world itself.

An extreme example of using meta-thinking is that we all know Team Evil is not going to be destroyed in the very next panel and Oots instantly live happily ever after due to a Deus Ex Machina simply because it's stupid plotting. (Before you mention the prophecies, that can easily be accounted with Xykon teleporting to Girard's Gate with Redcloak, Thor smiting both of them, and Belkar and Durkon for good measure, and then flinging Durkon into the dwarven lands while fixing the Gates himself. So yeah, possible.)

[Boogastreehouse]

These are all excellent points.

Am I the only one, however, to perceive a sharp increase in this sort of speculation in recent months?

Maybe I'm just imagining it...

[PId6]

These are all excellent points.

Am I the only one, however, to perceive a sharp increase in this sort of speculation in recent months?

Maybe I'm just imagining it...
I'm certainly seeing a lot of annoying "Because the plot demanded it" responses to various threads, so not just you. :smallyuk:

[Kaytara]

Maybe it's a bit too meta, but the thing is, these kind of arguments tend to be much better than most of the speculation people have to offer. As in, more reliable. The prophecy aside, we can say with a great amount of certainty that Xykon can't leave the story for good yet because it would leave his relationship with both Roy and Redcloak unresolved. For Redcloak, too, it is too early to disappear, because he still has a lot of character development to get. Likewise, V has to survive this, because it would otherwise render the whole setup with the IFCC completely meaningless and redundant.

For any of those things to happen would be lame, and Rich doesn't do lame. That is why they won't happen. Period. Good stories DO function by certain laws, after all, such as the Law of Foreshadowing or the Law of Conservation of Detail, and even Rich won't ignore them except on the rare occasion as part of a joke.

I agree that simple "Because the plot needed it" jabs are annoying, but only when it is used as a substitute for real reasons. Such as "V lost because the plot needed it" as opposed to "V lost due to his bad mental state that was well-established in the comic prior to the fight".

That aside, it's pretty rare that we can speculate anything with such a degree of certainty here on the forums, so it's only natural that we continue. :)

[Boogastreehouse]

A thread called thoughts on meta-thinking. Heh.

Hmmm... Meta-meta-thinking?

[shadzar]

Here is my meta-thinking....Rich can do anything he wants with it.

How is it we feel so connected to the lives of stick figures? :smalleek: It makes me feel so 2-dimensional at times.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

"O-Chul can't kill Xikorn now, because then the story would be over."

"Vaarsuvius had to lose that fight, so Rich fudged his own rules."

"They'll get there when the plot needs them there."

There's always been the occasional speculation on the forums as to how the in-story events under discussion relate to the larger story-telling process. I think it's normal to look beyond the characters and their motivations sometimes, and take a moment to wonder where Rich is eventually headed with all this.

Not so long ago this sort of speculation was relatively infrequent. Lately, though, it seems to me that every thread contains numerous posts citing story-telling reasons for why Character A was defeated by Character B.

While I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to consider the meta-structure of the Giant's storytelling process from time to time, I do feel that the near-constant presence of comments that place more emphasis on the needs of the plot, and less on the importance of the development and motivations of the characters, is really reducing the actual impact of the story.

What I mean to say is that people are so concerned with trying to predict the outcome of events, and fit them together from a story-telling perspective, that I feel that it's becoming easier and easier to loose sight of the fact that we are being told a story.

I think that it's becoming more common to try and wear the clothes of the storyteller; to identify with his thought-processes and to dissect his decisions. We tend to forget that we're supposed to be trying on the clothes of the characters and trying to identify with them and their struggles.

Any thoughts?

I don't necessarily disagree but a serial, especially a serial with relatively slow updates (this is not a criticism of Rich) lends itself over-analysis and public discussion. It's inevitable that meta-thinking will creep in as well as crazy-thinking, what-are-you-thinking-thinking and so on.

It's almost as if the reading of OotS is a communal activity.

[MickJay]

I do find it irritating that there are more discussions concerning "what should happen now that would make most sense plot-wise" rather than those about actual motivations of characters and reasons for the plot development (other than "plot demands that this happens").

I am also quite fed up with constant linking to TV Tropes (though fortunately it seems to be less popular now than it was even a few months earlier, perhaps partially thanks to particular couple of sig lines). I think can quite seriously claim that the existence of that site had a significant impact on the direction in which the discussions have been going recently.

Not to mention, I would be quite happy if we let the clockwork deity rest, threw away the writer's shotgun and stopped abusing the monk's shaving implement, as the whole triad has been (over)used way too much, often with little or no understanding of what the terms actually mean.

[EmeraldPhoenix]

I'm internet that way. (I secretly hope that this is the first time anyone has used internet as an adjective, and that it will soon be a popular meme).

...
...
...
...
genius. Pure genius. I'm in.

EX: "Yeah, I guess I don't recognise sarcasm very well, I'm just internet that way."

EX2: "Every once in a while, instead of laughing, I'll just say 'lol'. I'm internet like that."

[SPoD]

I'm not so annoyed when people says something like, "Well, I disagree with your theory of X, because that would be terrible writing," but I hate it when people say, "Rich CAN'T do X, because of Rule Y!" Rich can do whatever he wants, including break Rule Y, if he writes it well. And, for that matter, Rich is not immune to writing something poorly, either.



I am also quite fed up with constant linking to TV Tropes (though fortunately it seems to be less popular now than it was even a few months earlier, perhaps partially thanks to particular couple of sig lines).

I choose to take credit for that. :smallbiggrin:


Not to mention, I would be quite happy if we let the clockwork deity rest, threw away the writer's shotgun and stopped abusing the monk's shaving implement, as the whole triad has been (over)used way too much, often with little or no understanding of what the terms actually mean.

This would make a great webcomic: A robot priest, a Russian gunslinger, and a kung fu monk with a razor wander through good complex stories and ruin them through overzealous application of their namesakes.

First up: The boys find themselves in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, where Chekov insists that the glowing suitcase needs to do something at the end of the story. Hilarity ensues!

[Optimystik]

These are all excellent points.

Am I the only one, however, to perceive a sharp increase in this sort of speculation in recent months?

Maybe I'm just imagining it...

Faster server = more discussion, it's not a huge leap.

I think the rules-lawyering really kicked into high gear in Old Blind Pete's house, because people were concerned how a high level rogue and a pacifist sorcerer/outsider could get past a thieves' guild.

But in the end, why does it matter? Rich barely reads the forums anyway. He built us this playground, we might as well play in it.

[Boogastreehouse]

Faster server = more discussion, it's not a huge leap.

Yeah, I could see that accounting for some of it, although I've been aware of (or at least imagining) an increase in the volume of comments/criticisms/explanations that point directly to the needs of the plot for some time now; the server change is a bit more recent.

(PS: I just noticed for the first time the gender identifier under your icon. For some reason, I always thought you were a girl. Maybe because of the way you write—carefully thought-out and courteous—or maybe your icon just struck me as feminine. Hope that doesn't seem like a weird observation, or offend you in any way.)

[Quorothorn]

I recognize that you're kidding, but I choose to take this seriously. I'm internet that way. (I secretly hope that this is the first time anyone has used internet as an adjective, and that it will soon be a popular meme). Some of us are storycrafters, and have never been on TV Tropes.

The fact of the matter is that you can not extricate the development of the plot from the development of the characters. You can not say "the character needs this, but the plot needs that," because they are one and the same. O-Chul can not destroy Xykon, because that would truncate the plot and destroy the arcs of major characters like Roy.

Yes, it would be nice to simply be a passive audience and take every panel at face value. If you can do that, more power to you. Some us can't help but theorize and postulate outcomes from actions, or conclusions to stories. We can't believe obvious red herrings any more than we can believe that CSI caught the right guy on the first try even though we're only halfway through the episode. That's just how storycrafters work. We don't always write about it (A lot of us do. It's internet.), but we're darn sure thinking it.

If Rich is smart (which, clearly, he is!), he'll subvert some of our expectations and give us a few surprises, but he still won't let O-Chul destroy Xykon.

EDIT: A thread called thoughts on meta-thinking. Heh.

Agreed on the whole 'once you know how to analyze these things, it's kind of hard to avoid doing it regularly' points there. Also, I am totally on board with use of "internet" as an adjective. I will attempt to use it as such at least once both IRL and online within the week.


Also, I would just like to say (as a storyteller and a reader of stories both) that TV Tropes is hardly a bad site: lots of fun to peruse in my opinion (I've found some good music from it, actually). It's just that very few things can stand up to the level of repetition that seems to have occurred at times re:linking to TV Tropes here. It's also not a holy canon illuminating all who read it of the path to understanding and predicting every story ever crafted (duh), nor an infallible prescription in how to write stories (again, duh), and shouldn't be used as such.

[Dr. Cthulwho]

Not so long ago this sort of speculation was relatively infrequent. Lately, though, it seems to me that every thread contains numerous posts citing story-telling reasons for why Character A was defeated by Character B.

I think it is much more likely to occur during critical moments in the story, or where something is occurring that is perceived to have the potential to really change the story in very unexpected ways.

The one I can think of is the splice V vs. Xykon. Following Belkar's joke. This I guess was a big moment because a lot of people saw (based upon their own knowledge of the game or what the IFCC said etc) that there was a real chance V had the potential to destroy Xykon and Redcloak which likely went against expectations because Xykon and Redcloak are vital components in the story.

In those moments people might fall on discussions of plot for reasons why it something will/wont happen. "X can't occur to Z now, otherwise how will Y etc".

[Ghastly Epigram]

I'm internet that way. (I secretly hope that this is the first time anyone has used internet as an adjective, and that it will soon be a popular meme).


This would make a great webcomic: A robot priest, a Russian gunslinger, and a kung fu monk with a razor wander through good complex stories and ruin them through overzealous application of their namesakes.

I love this thread. :smallbiggrin:

[Haven]

I do have to say the idea "This can't happen because it would be bad writing" bugs me. That's like saying "The Giant MUST follow ALL cliches at ALL times. Which is as ridumbculous as, well, that word right there.

One thing we've consistently seen is that this comic loves screwing with audience expectations. The best example is Kubota's fate. It would be TERRIBLE writing to establish someone as a major threat for over 100 comics, then just abruptly end his story in the middle by having him killed! Right? Right? No, because it was awesome.

So saying that the obvious thing "has to happen" because "the plot demands it" is actually pretty good evidence that it's probably not going to happen that way. But this comic has remained consistently good throughout (well, except for Bozzek IMO, but that's another rant), so no matter what direction he takes the story I'm confident it's a great one.

So to put it in terms of TVTropes (with which I have a love-hate relationship, but of which I am a frequent contributor and addictee): it's like everyone who engages in this type of meta-speculation starting reading that site and their eyes just glazed over every time the words "subverted trope" came up. Geez.

[Fish]

Lately, though, it seems to me that every thread contains numerous posts citing story-telling reasons for why Character A was defeated by Character B.
The more you know about storytelling the harder it is to watch movies, read books, and enjoy television without being aware of the meta-reality: this is not a real-life event you are watching or reading, it is a constructed reality that conforms to certain rules of fiction.

Personally, I avoid TV Tropes, because I like to think I have earned my storytelling stripes as actor and author; no amount of trope-name memorization will convey to a person a intuitive sense of the dramatic needs of a story.

If you know how storytelling works, you look at a film such as "Deep Impact" and know the entire plot arc before the movie ever begins. It's that easy.

[Optimystik]

(PS: I just noticed for the first time the gender identifier under your icon. For some reason, I always thought you were a girl. Maybe because of the way you write—carefully thought-out and courteous—or maybe your icon just struck me as feminine. Hope that doesn't seem like a weird observation, or offend you in any way.)

I'm not offended at all; I've also noticed quite a few female posters here (e.g. Kish, Kaytara, SPoD, Lira, Dandelion, and others) to post maturely, so I see it is a compliment.

There's also the minor point that I'm gayer than springtime. :smalltongue:


Personally, I avoid TV Tropes, because I like to think I have earned my storytelling stripes as actor and author; no amount of trope-name memorization will convey to a person a intuitive sense of the dramatic needs of a story.

Don't do that! I guarantee that no matter how much you know about genre conventions, you can learn something from that site. It also seems to be the place that the defunct "In Popular Culture" sections emigrated to from Wikipedia.

[Lissibith]

A lot of great thoughts and comments - this is a fun thread to read.

My $0.02... I've noticed the increase as well, and it might be cynical of me, but I've sort of chalked it up to too many novice storytellers. That is, some people are reading, and when they encounter something that's not the way *they* would write it, they assume it must be wrong, and therefore could only be the product of plot manipulation. The numerous threads about O-chul and V vs Xykon seem particularly full of this sort of thinking.

[Blackjackg]

I'll do my part to ensure that goes viral.

...
...
...
...
genius. Pure genius. I'm in.

EX: "Yeah, I guess I don't recognise sarcasm very well, I'm just internet that way."

EX2: "Every once in a while, instead of laughing, I'll just say 'lol'. I'm internet like that."

Also, I am totally on board with use of "internet" as an adjective. I will attempt to use it as such at least once both IRL and online within the week.


Yes. YES! It's beginning! Mua ha ha ha ha!

[Fish]

Don't do that! I guarantee that no matter how much you know about genre conventions, you can learn something from that site.
You can memorize chord names and likely progressions. You can tell me what a mu chord is, or a Picardy Third, or a vi-ii-V-I resolution, you could memorize the rules of counterpoint, but I would still prefer to take lessons from a musician who can really play. No system of rules, theories, or tropes is complete.

I don't care to study or emulate what people think is conventional. I'm more fond of storytelling that turns convention on its ear, like Firefly.

[Shatteredtower]

I'm more fond of storytelling that turns convention on its ear, like Firefly.

...You've got to be kidding.

[Theodoriph]

Xikorn???

Seriously...Xikorn?




With the glacial pace of the story compared to say a movie, it's only natural that people analyze it from all angles and perspectives. There really isn't anything else to do while awaiting the next page.

And it hasn't become more common. Most people have been doing it since they were a child.

When I used to watch cartoons, I knew that Inspector Gadget wouldn't catch Dr. Claw because that would basically end the series. I also knew that Inspector Gadget wouldn't be killed, for the same reason. Thus I could safely assume that in every episode if Gadget got into trouble, he would be rescued from trouble in some way by Penny (and the dog) and/or dumb luck.

[Fish]

...You've got to be kidding.
No, I'm not kidding. I get bored of watching programs where you can guess the next plot point 20 minutes before you get there.

[Shatteredtower]

No, I'm not kidding. I get bored of watching programs where you can guess the next plot point 20 minutes before you get there.

And you couldn't do that with Joss Whedon's Wagon Trail in Space?

[Optimystik]

I don't care to study or emulate what people think is conventional. I'm more fond of storytelling that turns convention on its ear, like Firefly.

Rofl.
*cough*

Yep, you picked a real convention-buster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Firefly), there.

[Timberboar]

Rofl.
*cough*

Yep, you picked a real convention-buster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Firefly), there.

Hey look, a TV Tropes link in this thread. Who'd have guessed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlesl31prs0q8gb) that would happen?

[Morgan Wick]

Third straight TV Tropes reference:

I can summarize many people's responses like this: TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).

[Nimrod's Son]

I secretly hope that this is the first time anyone has used internet as an adjective
Sorry to disappoint. (http://www.thebrilliance.com/thebrilliance/permalink.asp?id=576)

[hotgamerchick]

Just thought I'd jump in here real quick to give my four cents...

I understand the OP's point about getting into the character's POV and motivation. I agree that while reading a story, it makes it more enjoyable for some people, myself included to do so. However, as an avid D&D player, I also understand the motivation to get into the rules, and character "sheets", and DM decisions, and all that.

What I tend to do is read the comic once for story value. Then I read the forums, and think about the D&D geek aspects of things. And if needed, go back to read the comic a second time from a more analytical POV.

I find enjoyment from both aspects.

And if I am reading the forums, and it seems things are getting a little too technical for my tastes, or it's getting to a point where I am losing the essence of the story because I'm thinking too far into the rules... I skip those posts for myself, and revert back to enjoying the story.

To each their own, whether it's storyline, geekery, or both.

*smile* I LOVE OoTS!

[Shadow_of_Light]

While I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to consider the meta-structure of the Giant's storytelling process from time to time, I do feel that the near-constant presence of comments that place more emphasis on the needs of the plot, and less on the importance of the development and motivations of the characters, is really reducing the actual impact of the story.

I suspect a large number of the meta-thinking posts regarding storyline that have appeared of late are in response to the large number of meta-gaming posts.

And here I thought this thread was going to be a thread about how V was not using his omniscient RL-Player-Sense to win that last fight.

[DoctorJest]

I blame TV Tropes.

Suddenly everyone thinks they're a storycrafter. :smallbiggrin:

I kid, I kid... :smallwink:

Actually, I think you're on to something. I've seen people pick apart someone else's roleplaying tips or actual play accounts by just linking to TV Tropes as if that somehow imparted them with some great wisdom about stories. "Oh you're using a HAND WAVE when you say that <trope link>. How quaint" and "I see you're playing a classic EVERYMAN HERO who has an EVIL MENTOR. Don't you think that's a bit cliche?"

The condescending tone is almost always present, too.

not saying everyone who quotes tvtropes does this, but alot of "tropers" sure seem to think it's made them an Instant Expert (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantExpert)

[Spoomeister]

In no particular order, and all just my opinion rather than a swipe at any specific person:

- The meta-thinking thing just makes me think we're fairly far along in the story, if not at its end. We have enough information about the characters, plot to date, major conflicts, etc. that there's more things that need resolving than there are reasonable places to diverge or expand. The more you're second-guessing the outcome, the closer you are to it.

- The TV Tropes thing must be some generational thing that a whole bunch of people came up with a few years ago or something, and I'm too old to get it, because I've looked at some of the site and it seems pretty childish and awkward overall.

- Joss Whedon is an overrated hack.

- Firefly fans creep me out with their level of devotion to it. Don't bother debating me on it or insulting me for it. This is one of those things where I mildly disliked it to start with - overwritten, full of itself, not terribly original - and then everyone and their cousin went so 110% ga-ga for it that now I despise it just to be contrarian.

[Porthos]

I'm more fond of storytelling that turns convention on its ear, like Firefly.

<Potentially Inflammatory Statement>

Sorry, but I saw Cowboy Bebop first. :smalltongue: Sadly Firefly (what I could stomach of it) was just a pale reflection of that show.:smallwink:

</Potentially Inflammatory Statement>

[Quorothorn]

Yes. YES! It's beginning! Mua ha ha ha ha!

Well, I can now say that I'm one for TWWOOOOOOOOO!!!

Now I just gotta find a legitimate excuse on the Internet somewhere within five days, and also use it again IRL because I'm not certain I was heard last time (I was in the movie theater, watching Star Trek).


You can memorize chord names and likely progressions. You can tell me what a mu chord is, or a Picardy Third, or a vi-ii-V-I resolution, you could memorize the rules of counterpoint, but I would still prefer to take lessons from a musician who can really play. No system of rules, theories, or tropes is complete.

I don't care to study or emulate what people think is conventional. I'm more fond of storytelling that turns convention on its ear, like Firefly.

What's funny here is that Firefly has one of the most extensive article sets on the site. There's plenty of convention in there.

Also, erm, what are Picardy Thirds anyway? My musical experience in recent times consists of singing in my college chorus, in which my entire goal is to not screw anyone else up whilst providing an additional male voice (since we're kinda rare here). I couldn't tell you where an "A" note is or any of the rest of it: I just extrapolate from the note's general position and match myself to those around me. Is that a singing term, a string thing, general music-writing technique, or what? (Maybe I should just check Wikipedia or something, actually...)


- Firefly fans creep me out with their level of devotion to it. Don't bother debating me on it or insulting me for it. This is one of those things where I mildly disliked it to start with - overwritten, full of itself, not terribly original - and then everyone and their cousin went so 110% ga-ga for it that now I despise it just to be contrarian.

Hey, we're not all like that (to be honest, I'm completely uninvolved with its online fandom, so I've never actually encountered any of these crazies I hear about: my sympathies for your misfortune in that regard, by the way). I love the show, think it should've gone on longer, and have actually said at one point that I consider it "perhaps the closest I'll ever see to a 'perfect' TV show"...but it's, well, not.

[Lamech]

I think Rich in general leaves himself with a good amount of freedom in what his characters can do. For example we could end up with a dead bird in the very next panel. When V was going to attack Xykon by the rules we could have very well ended up with a V dead in one round or an X dead in one round. So I find a lot of the attempts at rules lawyering really silly.

[PId6]

I think Rich in general leaves himself with a good amount of freedom in what his characters can do. For example we could end up with a dead bird in the very next panel. When V was going to attack Xykon by the rules we could have very well ended up with a V dead in one round or an X dead in one round. So I find a lot of the attempts at rules lawyering really silly.
But nonetheless fun.

[factotum]

"I see you're playing a classic EVERYMAN HERO who has an EVIL MENTOR. Don't you think that's a bit cliche?"


Anyone who says that doesn't understand TV Tropes properly...the site itself tells you that tropes are NOT cliches, they're just the things the audience expects to be there in a story.

[Optimystik]

Hey look, a TV Tropes link in this thread. Who'd have guessed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlesl31prs0q8gb) that would happen?

The difference is that I never claimed to be original or unconventional. :smallcool:


I think Rich in general leaves himself with a good amount of freedom in what his characters can do. For example we could end up with a dead bird in the very next panel. When V was going to attack Xykon by the rules we could have very well ended up with a V dead in one round or an X dead in one round. So I find a lot of the attempts at rules lawyering really silly.

Part of the reason that rules theorizing fails in this strip is because the truly boneheaded moves the characters often make during combat are difficult for true D&D players to predict. Zapping a lich with lightning, raining fire on a room full of ghosts, abandoning your rogue underling so that she has to fight a seasoned warrior head-on... the list goes on. SoD was a particularly egregious offender, the tactical decisions there are real headscratchers.

[DoctorJest]

Anyone who says that doesn't understand TV Tropes properly...the site itself tells you that tropes are NOT cliches, they're just the things the audience expects to be there in a story.

That was kinda the point. While tvtropes.com may not be the enemy, it has put a loaded gun into the hands of a great deal of morons who believe that it has gifted them with the wisdom of the ages.

[DoctorJest]

<Potentially Inflammatory Statement>

Sorry, but I saw Cowboy Bebop first. :smalltongue: Sadly Firefly (what I could stomach of it) was just a pale reflection of that show.:smallwink:

</Potentially Inflammatory Statement>

Yes, because like Cowboy Bebop, Firefly was focused on the American Jazz/Beat generation of the 1940s-1960s and the rock music of the 70's, and focused heavily on the music of that era. In fact, Like Cowboy Bebop, each Firefly episode focused on a different musical style. I think Yoko Kanno and the Seatbelts even performed the soundtrack to Serenity!

Oh wait... no.. that's all B.S.

Maybe the word "Cowboy" just confused you to the vast differences between the two shows from a thematic, cultural, and even musical perspective. Because a show about 1880s cowpokes in space v.s a show about 1960s beatniks in space is pretty different except for the "in space" part. Unless you read too much into the word "cowboy" (which in Cowboy Bebop doesn't even mean "cowboy", or even anything remotely "western" BTW. It's just slang for "Bounty Hunter" of which none of the protagonists of Firefly were. FYI). Or if you just got confused by the DVD box set covers without watching both. Which I suspect is the case, since the covers DO strike a startling similarity. Of course for anyone who has actually WATCHED both shows, we know the similarity ends there.

[Quorothorn]

Does anyone mind if I set up a popcorn booth right over here? It's free for all.

[Porthos]

Of course for anyone who has actually WATCHED both shows, we know the similarity ends there.

Saw about an episode and a half of Firefly and was decidedly unimpressed.* I think I just about lost it (after seeing what was in my eyes cliche after cliche after cliche) when I first saw the Space Nazis(tm).

But, hey, I don't begrudge people who love the show. Different strokes for different folks and all that. No, really, I'm glad that the show has touched a lot of people. And I wish that it had continued, if only so it could bring joy and entertainment into people's lives. It just doesn't do anything for me.

Of course, I find the... passion... that some people have when they defend The One True Show(tm) hilarious. And absolutely worth tweaking from time to time.

I may be off base here, but if the outspoken Firefly fans just had a little more tact and humility, I don't think the show would nearly have the amount of guff that's sent in it's direction. But I guess that's just Hype Aversion (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HypeAversion) at play, eh?

Anyway, if I offended with my, admittedly tounge-in-cheek, response, well, I did put in the smilies for a reason. It was there to show that I wasn't entirely being serious with my comments.**

Peace, out (and all that). :smallsmile:

* And before anyone says that I have to watch more before I can make a judgment on a show... Well, no. "Life's too short" and all that. If I find that a show is populated with (admittedly in my opinion what I find to be) cookie-cutter characters and a plot-by-the-numbers scripting, then I'm probably not going to give it another chance.

Or to put it a nicer way: It just didn't work for me, and I see no reason why I should give it a second chance.

** BTW you're right. I should have compared Firefly to the first couple of seasons of Andromeda. :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

[Porthos]

Does anyone mind if I set up a popcorn booth right over here? It's free for all.

Nah, I'm good. I'm far too mellow (and been around the net for far too long) to get up in arms over a post like that. :smallwink:

Been online for over 20 years. So it's a strong case of "Been there, done that."

After awhile the hard-core flame wars just don't get to be worth it.

I'll just settle for gentle snarkiness. Which never goes out of style. :smallcool:

[Boaromir]

I'll just settle for gentle snarkiness. Which never goes out of style. :smallcool:



Well said, sir. Well said.


Personally, I like TVTropes. Obviously it should be used correctly though.

[Tova]

Ah speaking of TV Tropes, and meta-thinking...

http://www.spike.com/video/chekhovs-gun/2723195

This is pretty funny. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you take a few minutes and watch. :smallbiggrin:

[Simanos]

There's so few real sci fi shows produced and most are so bad that I really liked Firefly, comparatively speaking. Even my favourite of all time, Babylon 5, was very very far from perfect.

[Timberboar]

The difference is that I never claimed to be original or unconventional. :smallcool:

Nothing personal, Opt, you just happened to be the first one to pull out a link. I'd been sitting on that reply for awhile. I knew it was inevitable. :smallbiggrin:

[Lufia]

I've never seen Firefly, so there goes that discussion for me.

As for the trend of meta-thinking in terms of storytelling structure, isn't it expected to flare up when plot critical stuff is happening? Somebody is attacking the main villain, here. As an audience, we just don't expect him to be defeated, hence the references to plot armour. In the same way, we don't expect the bad guys to win in the end.

As for TV tropes, well, every little thing and its contrary fits into a trope one way or another. And then some. It's just impossible to not use any trope and it's plain stupid to rebuke someone for doing it.

Can I have some of that popcorn, please? ^^

[The Extinguisher]

Part of the reason that rules theorizing fails in this strip is because the truly boneheaded moves the characters often make during combat are difficult for true D&D players to predict. Zapping a lich with lightning, raining fire on a room full of ghosts, abandoning your rogue underling so that she has to fight a seasoned warrior head-on... the list goes on. SoD was a particularly egregious offender, the tactical decisions there are real headscratchers.


Which goes hand in hand with the fact that no one can plan out their round at the table with their party. They have 6 seconds to react or they waste their round. They don't have time for D&D style tactics.

[Blackjackg]

- Joss Whedon is an overrated hack.


Hey now. I'd be the first to admit that not all of his stuff has been great, but I have few complaints about Buffy and none about his stint in Astonishing X-Men. Sure, he's no Shakespeare, or Wilde, or even Twain, but I don't think its any great stretch to say he's one of the best writers in television and mainstream comics today.



- Firefly fans creep me out with their level of devotion to it. Don't bother debating me on it or insulting me for it. This is one of those things where I mildly disliked it to start with - overwritten, full of itself, not terribly original - and then everyone and their cousin went so 110% ga-ga for it that now I despise it just to be contrarian.

I don't know how anyone can be too critical or too appreciative of this show. It clearly never got its feet under it before the show was cancelled, and they had to scramble to cram as much as they could into the film just to give it a semblance of a conclusion. I chalk it up as "We'll never know how great or how terrible the show could have been," and move the heck on.

[Kaytara]

Rofl.
*cough*

Yep, you picked a real convention-buster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Firefly), there.

Sorry, I don't think that is a particularly good point. For one thing, the length of the list tends to correlate somewhat to the size and enthusiasm of the fanbase, so other shows may use more tropes but have fewer of them listed due to there being less enthusiastic fans willing to pick them apart. For another thing, that page tends to list every single little thing, no matter if it were a major story arc or a gag mentioned in passing. Not to mention that many of the tropes are named just to point out that Firefly averts them.

But it's the BIG things that count. And in that regard, Firefly IS acknowledged as somewhat of a trope breaker. Rather than starring some team of professionals with the backing of the entire galactic empire, it features a rag-tag band of criminals and refugees struggling to keep their ship afloat. Rather than avoid dealing with the issue of supplies and weapons, the crew has to trouble itself over such matters constantly. It's set in space, but it doesn't have aliens. That's plenty of a convention breaker right there.

And Porthos, you're talking about not wanting to give the show a second chance... if you only watched one and a half episodes, you never even gave it a first chance. You complain about cookie-cutter characters, but was that not true for the Order of the Stick in the first few dozen strips? Suppose you had stopped reading then because Belkar was just the standard guy who wants to kill things, Haley the classic flirtatious rogue, V the formal intellectual and so on and so forth? I don't mind if it's just not your thing (and I appreciate the respectful way you put it in your post), but then I urge you to at least reconsider your reasons and the possibility that you may be missing out.

[Edna]

Also, erm, what are Picardy Thirds anyway?

A Picardy third is a major chord that ends a piece written in a minor key. (The "third" of the chord is raised a half step.) Very common in Baroque music, like Bach.

Edna

[Porthos]

And Porthos, you're talking about not wanting to give the show a second chance... if you only watched one and a half episodes, you never even gave it a first chance. You complain about cookie-cutter characters, but was that not true for the Order of the Stick in the first few dozen strips? Suppose you had stopped reading then because Belkar was just the standard guy who wants to kill things, Haley the classic flirtatious rogue, V the formal intellectual and so on and so forth? I don't mind if it's just not your thing (and I appreciate the respectful way you put it in your post), but then I urge you to at least reconsider your reasons and the possibility that you may be missing out.

Well, if I have to expand a bit, I will. :smallsmile: I like to think I'm a pretty good judge of what I like and don't like in a work of art. Sometimes I can just make an (near) instantaneous judgement on something and see if it appeals to my particular likes and dislikes.

If something doesn't get past the first hurdle, as it were, I'm not really inclined to give it another chance. Could I be missing out on something good? Sure. It's that 9 times out of 10 thing at play. But the thing is I'd rather not sit through the 9 times of sticking around and seeing that my initial impression was right just to find that 1 that shows my initial reaction was wrong.

To put it another way, I need a hook to stick around. The hook can be as minor as a compelling character, a witty turn of phrase, or even some good eye-candy (S/FX or otherwise). But if I don't even have a hook to initially grab me, why should I waste my time? Especially if I have a lot of other entertainment options?

Also I will fully admit that if I have a neutral (or even slightly bad) reaction to something, I am willing to give it more time to impress me. Or if I see glimmers of something that might work out later down the road. But if I see something that I am initially hostile or dismissive of, then no, I really am not inclined to give it a second chance. Unless there is that aforementioned hook that might grab me. Something that might give me a reason to stick around.

Now that I have talked about the general, let me go to the specific. First off, these are (nearly) six year old memories speaking here. So I wouldn't be surprised if my recollections are off a bit. Friends of mine were raving about Firefly up and down and speaking about how it was the most fantastic thing ever. Well a lot of these friends were also huge fans of Buffy (which was another show I never really got into, BTW, so that might color things slightly) and they kept going on and on and on about it. Enough so that I already had a bit of Hype Aversion going in.

But I thought, what the hey, I'll give it a chance. So I sat down with them and started watching it (this was, BTW, when it was First Run), To say I was disappointed would be an understatement. None of the characters "clicked" with me. I realize that "tropes aren't a bad thing", but all I could see in the characters were their traits. I didn't see any three-dimensionality to, well, any of them.

Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing. A lot of shows are just made up of one-note-ponies, and they can still be compelling to watch. But the problem was that none of the characters pushed my personal Rules of Cool, Funny, or Awesome. They just didn't work for me. Maybe it was the acting. Maybe it was the situation. Who knows? All I know is that none of the characters appealed to me, on pretty much any level. I just didn't want to watch these characters more or learn about what made them tick.

As for the writing..... Well, I am the first to say that I love clever writing. After all, I adore shows like Lost and Battlestar Galactica. Unfortunately the difference between clever writing and pretentious writing is very much in the eye of the beholder (and I am quite sure that people who hate the two shows I just mentioned will agree with me). :smallwink: And, I am sorry to say, I found Firefly pretty pretentious. Now these, again, aren't necessarily bad things. But they just didn't click my personal buttons.

And when people around me say, "No. Just give it another chance. You'll love it. Really." I look at them and say, "Nope. I've seen enough of it to realize that it just wouldn't be worth it for to sit through. The very things that you like in the show, I dislike. So I really don't want more of that."

It really does come down to personal preference I'm afraid. :smallsmile:

Or to put it another way, I've heard some people call Firefly a fusion of Buffy and Babylon 5*. Well since neither show really appeals to me.... :smalltongue:

Anyway, if one wants, I can compare Firefly to, oh I dunno, meal of swordfish. It can be the most exquisite swordfish out there. But if I just don't like the taste of swordfish, I'm not going to like the meal, no matter how well it was crafted. And in this case, I just didn't like the taste of Firefly, and I've done enuf independent research to figure out that I won't like further tastes of it.

So perhaps I am missing out. But I am willing to live with that risk. :smalltongue:

* Yes, I am quite aware that this statement is not quite right. For instance, Farscape would probably be a better fit than B5 (though I can't say I really liked Farscape either - though I don't actively dislike it. :smalltongue: That's definelty a show that's a "meh" with me). And even there, one runs into problems. But I can absolutely tell you that people have told me of the B5/Buffy fusion idea to my face. :smallwink:

[Optimystik]

Sorry, I don't think that is a particularly good point. For one thing, the length of the list tends to correlate somewhat to the size and enthusiasm of the fanbase, so other shows may use more tropes but have fewer of them listed due to there being less enthusiastic fans willing to pick them apart. For another thing, that page tends to list every single little thing, no matter if it were a major story arc or a gag mentioned in passing. Not to mention that many of the tropes are named just to point out that Firefly averts them.

You're entitled to your opinion. The point wasn't the length of the list though, merely that a list of conventions existed.


Which goes hand in hand with the fact that no one can plan out their round at the table with their party. They have 6 seconds to react or they waste their round. They don't have time for D&D style tactics.

:haley:: "Relax, speaking is a free action."

[Shatteredtower]

Rather than starring some team of professionals with the backing of the entire galactic empire, it features a rag-tag band of criminals and refugees struggling to keep their ship afloat. Rather than avoid dealing with the issue of supplies and weapons, the crew has to trouble itself over such matters constantly.

So, kind of a cross between "Gilligan's Island" and "Dusty's Trail", which was Gilligan in a stagecoach, complete with Bob Denver.


It's set in space, but it doesn't have aliens. That's plenty of a convention breaker right there.

Instead, it had savages -- in space. Yeah, real ground-breaking.

"It's about the aftermath of the American Civil War, see, only the South was all about the freedom and we get into the consequences of Northern Industrialization and its exploitive practices. Oh, and it's about a cowboy who is also a pirate and we throw in a cute ninja girl, a wacky pilot -- sorta like Mad Dog Murdock, but a little less crazy -- and a genius mechanic. But get this -- the mechanic's a girl!"

Occasionally entertaining, but the best thing about the series was that it died before it could really embarrass itself further.

(For example, would it have hurt to cast someone that could actually pronounce a word of Mandarin? It's like the series decided to base its casting around an Asian version of Ricky's observation in Kyle Baker's "Why I Hate Saturn": "Black music is in, Black culture is in, but Black people will never be in.”)

[Quorothorn]

Nah, I'm good. I'm far too mellow (and been around the net for far too long) to get up in arms over a post like that. :smallwink:

Been online for over 20 years. So it's a strong case of "Been there, done that."

After awhile the hard-core flame wars just don't get to be worth it.

I'll just settle for gentle snarkiness. Which never goes out of style. :smallcool:

Oh, I wasn't referring to you. It's just I sensed a general debate formulating around Firefly and all, so I wanted to be prepared. :smallbiggrin:


Can I have some of that popcorn, please? ^^

Free all the time for all as long as this goes on. If there any special requests for amount of butter or salt, just inform the automated vendor-thingy.

[Haven]

But it's the BIG things that count. And in that regard, Firefly IS acknowledged as somewhat of a trope breaker. Rather than starring some team of professionals with the backing of the entire galactic empire, it features a rag-tag band of criminals and refugees struggling to keep their ship afloat. Rather than avoid dealing with the issue of supplies and weapons, the crew has to trouble itself over such matters constantly. It's set in space, but it doesn't have aliens. That's plenty of a convention breaker right there.

I disagree. Even if you ignore that Blake's 7, Red Dwarf, Farscape, Cowboy Bebop etc. did it first to the point where it probably counts as its own convention--Firefly was basically all the Western conventions gleefully applied to a space setting. (Which was also ground already broken (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWestern), incidentally).

Also, you used the phrase "rag-tag band" to try to say something isn't a cliche. Come on.

Tropes are not bad or good; Firefly didn't really bust any conventions. For shows that did, try "The Prisoner" or maybe "Neon Genesis Evangelion"--which, yes, hyped up a lot, especially if you've been a-tropin', but it did turn the "kids battle giant monsters with giant robots" thing on its head.

[abishur]

To be fair, much of the reason why this very thing goes on is because of the incessant debate about why a specific event couldn't have happened because of some D&D rule. Or why any given character has to be a certain alignment based on a D&D standard despite Rich's emphatic statement on what alignment said character is.

Besides, that is the nature of the beast in forums. The whole point of a forum like this is to talk about a certain strip. "What does this mean" "check out how such and such a character has developed" "What does this mean in relation to the strip on the whole" or "Where do you think this will go now".

I might be missing some deeper point you're going for, but it seems like the distinction between trying to get into the character's clothes and identify with them is largely inseparable from getting into the author's clothes and figuring out what HE wants them to be going through.

And hey, that might be the very point you're going for here. :smallbiggrin:

If it has increased, I might argue that the reason for the increase is that more and more threads seem to be following the mindset of imposing their own personal convictions on a given event.

For example, a conversation about V's guilt for running away turns into a conversation about who thinks V did the right thing and who thinks V did a selfish thing. But it doesn't really matter what your views are about it (unless the thread is something like "do you think V was justified" but those are pointless because it's all boils down to opinion), it only mattered how V felt about it and that can only be determined by considering what Rich was going for in that strip.