Does Rich Burlew read TvTropes?

[Mr. Versipellis]

Does anyone know if he does? Because it seems he's taken every fantasy "trope" and either parodied it or "lampshaded" it. OOTS also seems to be the Wiki's favourite thing since Mystery Science Theatre.

[Optimystik]

I can't think of a single webcomic author who hasn't by now.

(A single good one, at any rate)

[Querzis]

I can't think of a single webcomic author who hasn't by now.

Hell, I cant think of a single person I know who hasn't by now. And yes, that actually include my grandparents.

[Asta Kask]

But it should be stressed that the tropes are listed there because they are classics... not the other way around.

[truemane]

Exactly. Like the infamous 'I don't want to fight in the shade did he or dind't he see the trailer for 300' debate, these things existed before the internet decided to keep track of them. We had pron back then too. Just nowhere near as much of it.

Look at Bored of the Rings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings)for an earlier, non-internet-fueled take on fantasy parody.

[Lecan]

But it should be stressed that the tropes are listed there because they are classics... not the other way around.


Because it bears repeating. I don't know if the site tracks literature, but you can find themes and similiar situations in such works as Shakespeare, Greek writings and probably even caveman paintings.

[SaintRidley]

Because it bears repeating. I don't know if the site tracks literature, but you can find themes and similiar situations in such works as Shakespeare, Greek writings and probably even caveman paintings.

It already has that covered.

[hamishspence]

I don't know if the site tracks literature, but you can find themes and similiar situations in such works as Shakespeare, Greek writings and probably even caveman paintings.


There is an index: The Oldest Ones In The Book- which divides tropes by age:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOldestOnesInTheBook

[Morty]

Because it bears repeating. I don't know if the site tracks literature, but you can find themes and similiar situations in such works as Shakespeare, Greek writings and probably even caveman paintings.

What also bears repeating is that common themes in fiction, fantasy or otherwise, exist indepedently of this site and one doesn't have to read it in order to be aware of them, use them, subvert them and so on.

[talkamancer]

There is an index: The Oldest Ones In The Book- which divides tropes by age:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOldestOnesInTheBook

And there goes another evening I had planned to be productive !

[hamishspence]

true- the important bit is when names tend to be used.

V's "I blame Cerebus" as a hint to Cerebus Syndrome, or the lampshading scene.

Though in a few cases, the tropes were named after OoTS usages, even if OoTS wasn't the first to use those particular ones, the OoTS names for them, have become the standard.

Color-coded for Your Convenience
Start Of Darkness
Your Approval Fills Me With Shame

And others.

[NerfTW]

Does anyone know if he does? Because it seems he's taken every fantasy "trope" and either parodied it or "lampshaded" it. OOTS also seems to be the Wiki's favourite thing since Mystery Science Theatre.

Gosh, I wonder if he also reads the dictionary. He seems to use a lot of words from that as well!


Or encyclopedias!


Maybe he uses a lot of "tropes" because THEY'RE TROPES BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMON. If you list everything in existence, you can't express shock that people reference something from the list.

[Acrux]

But, but...It's on the INTERNET! I know the INTERNET!

[Turkish Delight]

Blatantly. Very blatantly. In fact, I'd guess OotS is one of the most TV Tropes-savvy Web Comics in existence, openly referencing exact trope names.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't know if the site tracks literature, but you can find themes and similiar situations in such works as Shakespeare, Greek writings and probably even caveman paintings.

Yes, it does. In fact, one of the Prime Rules Of Tropes is that "Shakespeare Did It First".

(except where Ovid did...)

[Daefos]

Blatantly. Very blatantly. In fact, I'd guess OotS is one of the most TV Tropes-savvy Web Comics in existence, openly referencing exact trope names.

Or, rather, used the same terms as TVTropes did.

I honestly can't recall OotS using any "exact trope names" that don't predate TVTropes' usage of them.

[Turkish Delight]

Or, rather, used the same terms as TVTropes did.

I honestly can't recall OotS using any "exact trope names" that don't predate TVTropes' usage of them.

Lampshade Hanging. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)

[gooddragon1]

There is an index: The Oldest Ones In The Book- which divides tropes by age:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOldestOnesInTheBook

You actually linked to it... why would you do that?!? Now this thread will be sucked into the singularity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NegativeSpaceWedgie) you've unleashed!

[FabuVinny]

He does know his cliches so I'm sure there would be little difference if he hadn't ever been to TV Tropes.

But he was definately well aware of it by the point where he lampshaded lampshade hanging (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html).

[ThePhantasm]

Maybe he does and that's why updates are sometimes slow... dun dun dun tssch!

On a more serious note, I think the question itself is irrelevant. Most people know the tropes anyways just from watching TV, reading, etc. Its part of the air we breathe, so to speak. I highly doubt that he surfs the tropes looking for ideas or anything ridiculous like that.... plus, as he has said, the strip has been plotted out for a long time in his mind.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Lampshade Hanging. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html)

Which was a common studio/writing term long, long before TVTropes made a page about it, as the article itself (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) says.

There aren't really any exclusive or original ideas on TVTropes. That's kind of the point.

[Vargtass]

Which was a common studio/writing term long, long before TVTropes made a page about it, as the article itself (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) says.

There aren't really any exclusive or original ideas on TVTropes. That's kind of the point.

Nerd-o-Rama, could I sig your conclusion, please?

[Kish]

Has he been there at some point in his life? Probably.

Did he then decide never to go there again because he thought it might negatively influence his work, and actually stick to that decision? I wouldn't be surprised.

Does the site directly influence the comic? I doubt it.

[Conuly]

Rich might or might not read TvTropes. It's irrelevant whether he does or doesn't - sooner or later, EVERY interaction, characterization, or plot twist has an entry over there. That's why they're called tropes.

TvTropes reads OotS, though, and how!

[Spiky]

Is there a trope covering the discussion of tropes, yet? Cause there should be. And it should definitely include a note about questioning whether the author uses the thread or the trope websites to create his comic.

[derfenrirwolv]

There aren't really any exclusive or original ideas on TVTropes. That's kind of the point.

There aren't any really exclusive or original ideas. Thats kind of the point of Tv tropes.

[Turkish Delight]

Which was a common studio/writing term long, long before TVTropes made a page about it, as the article itself (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) says.

There aren't really any exclusive or original ideas on TVTropes. That's kind of the point.

There are, however, terms which are used and/or were popularized primarily by TV Tropes. In the case of Lampshade Hanging, read the trope page again:


This practice is also known as "hanging a clock on it", "hanging a lantern on it", or "spotlighting it". In the film industry it's sometimes called "hanging a red flag" on something, after the screenwriting adage, "To hang a red flag on something takes the curse off of it," meaning that to lampshade something decreases the negative effects it might otherwise have. We went with this title because it's the one used in the Mutant Enemy bullpen.

The discussion page also includes lots of talk about how so many people have always heard it as, 'hang a lantern on it.'

So in other words, an industry trick with a whole bunch of different generic terms flying around for it is brought up in comic, and by some freak accident of history it happens to land on the exact one that TV Tropes uses all over the place, and by some freak accident of history again the creator of the comic expects that exact phrase for that exact phenomenon to be so widely known and understood that his readers will find it amusing without having to go reading up about obscure terms used in the entertainment industry. What a coincidence!

*sigh*

Listen, if for some reason you really hate the thought that Rich Burlow reads and acknowledges TV Tropes, and that the various references of exact trope names...and even direct reference of the previously rather obscure word 'trope'...are just astonishing accidents of various sorts, then well, suit yourself. I'm not going to find a way to nail down every possible loophole or stretched alternate explanation for why the comic seems so trope-savvy...and by trope-savvy, I mean the tropes as they are described on TV Tropes. I'm sorry, but while a wildly elaborate scheme to dupe a hero into unwittingly serving the scheme of a villain is old hat, the term 'Xanatos Gambit' to describe it and all it's permutations is not. If you see terms like that thrown around, then no matter how old the trope is in concept, you can wager safe money the writer is a Troper.

For my part, I'm somewhat puzzled at the amount of resistance I'm getting on what has struck me as really, really obvious fact for a long time. Rich Burlow reads, and does not hate, TV Tropes. Is this honestly in immense dispute?

[Maximum Zersk]

Me thinks it's cause people forget that Tropes Are Not Bad. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools)

[Turkish Delight]

Me thinks it's cause people forget that Tropes Are Not Bad. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools)

Possibly so. You'd almost think the guy is being accused of something terrible by the responses here.

I personally mark it as a point in a Web Comic author's favor if they read and enjoy TV Tropes. I mean, I guess there's some sort of weird honor in picking up all your tropes purely by pop culture osmosis (?), or whatever, but a TV Tropes reference is entertaining for me precisely because of how obscenely addictive the site is. It's not a bad reflection on someone to be well versed in something popular or interested in the tools of their own trade.

[B. Dandelion]

It's not just the specific pop culture references, it's the entire concept of "deconstruction." OOTS is a massive deconstruction of quite a few genres. TVTropes dot org attempts to deconstruct the entire storytelling process. They are derivative of the same thing, OOTS is not derivative of TVTropes.

When I hear Mutant Enemy I immediately think "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- which is one of the sources the Giant's specifically mentioned having drawn from, so it's hardly a stretch of coincidence for him to use the term "lampshade hanging" from them.

I personally love TVTropes and actually found OOTS through them, BTW.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm actually more curious whether or not the giant reads the crack pairings thread.:smallbiggrin:

[Wikimaster]

It's the same for me, too.

Edit: That was in response to B. Dandelion's post from last page.

[factotum]

The discussion page also includes lots of talk about how so many people have always heard it as, 'hang a lantern on it.'


But that still doesn't indicate that the TV Tropes website came up with the "hanging a lampshade" variant, which is the only way you could prove that Rich got that reference from that site rather than having heard it somewhere else. (And what's all this stuff about "tropes" being an odd word? I'd heard it long before TV Tropes existed).

The reason people are perhaps being a bit defensive about this is because we have had threads on here before where people have come on and pretty much said, "Oh, Rich Burlew is just ripping off TV Tropes." This particular thread may not be saying that, but I guess the memory of the ones that do rankles a bit!

[Turkish Delight]

But that still doesn't indicate that the TV Tropes website came up with the "hanging a lampshade" variant, which is the only way you could prove that Rich got that reference from that site rather than having heard it somewhere else.

It doesn't 'prove' it, but what astonishes me is that I need to prove it as if it were a criminal accusation. As mentioned, amongst a whole slew of possible phrases, many quite different, he uses the exact same phrase widely popularized by TV Tropes. He does it in such a way that indicates he suspects his viewing audience is well aware of exactly what he's talking about. If we brought the man to court, no, we could not try and convict him of reading TV Tropes, but for those of us who aren't hyper-defensive on the subject it's enough to think, 'Ha! The Giant is a troper!' with reasonable confidence...and without the accusative tone some people here seem to think goes with that.

I could probably scour the comic and come up with about five or six other examples, at which point someone would use all kinds of wacky twists to prove that either Rich used it first and TV Tropes got it from him or it came from somewhere not TV Tropes and Rich used it without the slightest intention of implying that there ever was a web site known as TV Tropes. I could do that, but what's the point? If it pains people to acknowledge the idea that Rich is a troper, then run free in your Giant-the-non-troper beliefs. I'm not going to force the idea down your throat.


(And what's all this stuff about "tropes" being an odd word? I'd heard it long before TV Tropes existed).

I'd never heard it before, and TV Tropes has a page somewhere mentioning how obscure the word was previously which I don't feel like searching for. It's certainly a word that is rather intimately linked with that particular web site now.


The reason people are perhaps being a bit defensive about this is because we have had threads on here before where people have come on and pretty much said, "Oh, Rich Burlew is just ripping off TV Tropes." This particular thread may not be saying that, but I guess the memory of the ones that do rankles a bit!

Well, with respect, it's not a point of shame to read and reference TV Tropes and anyone who gets upset at the possibility that (*gasp!*) Rich pulled a joke by referencing TV Tropes is taking things a bit too seriously. We're all ripping off somebody. So drop the defensiveness.

[busterswd]

Well, with respect, it's not a point of shame to read and reference TV Tropes and anyone who gets upset at the possibility that (*gasp!*) Rich pulled a joke by referencing TV Tropes is taking things a bit too seriously. We're all ripping off somebody. So drop the defensiveness.

Well suggesting a creative work is largely plagarized on the forums meant for fans of said creative work isn't exactly asking for a positive response. The last time I recall something like this came up was someone suggesting he ripped off the idea "1 in a million is a certainty" from Discworld and a similar backlash was had (though in that thread the author was a bit more argumentative).

Plus, sure, a lot of writers are well versed in their area of writing and have drawn from a lot of sources, but it's irritating when someone has a "giant revelation" thread that concludes coincidence is causality. Also TVTropes has had a polarized reputation on these forums; some people think it's a great way to waste time and quite enjoyable, other people have a bone to pick with the attitude of certain TVTrope community goers who act as it's become a definitive, authoritative resource, and that since it exists, most newer creative works must stem from it, when the opposite is largely true.

[Turkish Delight]

Well suggesting a creative work is largely plagarized on the forums meant for fans of said creative work isn't exactly asking for a positive response.

But no one has said that here. If you're feeling really defensive, as people apparently are, I guess you could read the initial post as, "the Giant has a big checklist of Fantasy tropes copied off TV Tropes and is just a huge hack who is going down the list copying each one in turn." More relaxed readers might simply read it as, "the Giant seems to draw some inspiration and jokes from TV Tropes every once in awhile." If being inspired by or getting a laugh out of something and deciding to play with it is plagiarism, everyone who has ever written something is a plagiarist.

Otherwise, it appears people are lashing out at a long-dead thread rather than a presently existing one. It's silly and it's made me rather defensive, since I've been called on to 'prove' something about three times now I felt was rather innocent and self-evident and did not require a peer-reviewed source.

[Zxo]

TVTropes didn't invent the tropes - it is merely describing them. The tropes existed long before TvTropes did - TvTropes itself often gives very old (sometimes centuries old) examples of a trope. There were also books, written earlier than TVTropes, that attempted to list character archetypes, plots, plot devices and the rest. I remember there is even a list of those books on TvTropes somewhere. So, you cannot "rip off" TvTropes, the only thing you can do is refer to a name given to a trope by that website, as the only original (=new) thing on TvTropes are some of the trope names, everything else is a description of ideas that have already existed and been used many times (which actually is a requirement to be a trope). So, I do not get how anyone can mention plagiarism here.

[OITS]

TV-Tropes definitely already jumped the shark...

[Kish]

Rich Burlow reads[...] TV Tropes.I think you're taking too much for granted. You're not Rich. I doubt very much he's told you he reads TV Tropes, or you would have mentioned that, instead of just repeating your assumption that anyone who questions that he does must be feeling defensive. I don't know when the site went up, but I think there's a good chance OotS used tropes just as much before the site existed.

[hamishspence]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Tropes

It lists the site as going up in April 2003.

Didn't OoTS come out in 2003?

Going by this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7333

the first strips appeared in late September 2003.

[Turkish Delight]

I think you're taking too much for granted. You're not Rich. I doubt very much he's told you he reads TV Tropes, or you would have mentioned that, instead of just repeating your assumption that anyone who questions that he does must be feeling defensive.

It's not the question; it's the hand-waving away of blatant clues when they lead to the conclusion 'Rich reads TV Tropes', with what now seems to be the underlying belief that accepting that assumption means Rich rips off TV Tropes. I've already presented one, but we've got others.

How about the reference (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0242.html) to Cerebus Syndrome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CerebusSyndrome)? It's possible the deliberate reference specifically to Cerebus as a comic which went from funny gags to serious business is something long predating TV Tropes. It's also possible that Rich created the term right then and there, leading to TV Tropes taking it from him.

Then there's the possibility he made a joke reference to an existing trope he saw on TV Tropes with the expectation that readers of that site would find it funny. But I guess we can't really prove that.

Or Good is Dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionDemotion?from=Main.GoodIsDumb), which has since been renamed to Redemption Demotion. It's possible the Giant was making a reference (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) to the old Space Balls quote or some other piece of fiction I don't know about. It's possible that the Giant simply felt that concept of 'Good being dumb' is so prevalent, TV Tropes or no, that everyone would recognize it.

Then there's the possibility he made a joke reference to an existing trope he saw on TV Tropes with the expectation that readers of that site would find funny. But I guess we can't really prove that.

I can't really prove anything, and I honestly don't stay away at nights worrying about it. It never even occurred to me that suggesting there is a connection might bother some people. But those references, and others, have always given me the strong impression Rich knows about and consciously makes links to TV Tropes, no more 'ripping it off' than he rips off G.I. Joe or Dune when he's using them for a joke. For me, it's always come across as pretty obvious and is a sign that Rich is someone who enjoys throwing out references to popular things, which is to his credit.


I don't know when the site went up, but I think there's a good chance OotS used tropes just as much before the site existed.

According to Wikipedia, TV Tropes launched in April 2003 and OotS in September of the same year, so no.

[Haven]

Cerebus Syndrome was coined by Websnark, which I'd be more inclined to believe he's heard of.

And "trope" is not really an obscure word, especially not for someone as well-versed in literature as the Giant.

So far he's yet to use anything that is particular to TV Tropes. If Xykon talks about his Crowning Moment of Awesome, that'd do it. Until then, I will continue to feel that people who make this argument are not, themselves, reading TVTropes, or else they'd notice that all the terms used were preexisting.

Mostly the amount of myopia in the assumption that he "obviously" reads TV Tropes bothers me. It's the same as the people who keep using the words "subversion" or "deconstruction" (or, of course, "trope") in ways that make it clear they only learned them from the context of that site, which is fine when used there, but quite strained in more general usage.

[Kish]

How about the reference (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0242.html) to Cerebus Syndrome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CerebusSyndrome)? It's possible the deliberate reference specifically to Cerebus as a comic which went from funny gags to serious business is something long predating TV Tropes.

Not possible. Factual.



Then there's the possibility he made a joke reference to an existing trope he saw on TV Tropes with the expectation that readers of that site would find it funny. But I guess we can't really prove that.

I would be surprised to learn that anyone who wrote a comic didn't know the term "Cerberus Syndrome" before reading it on tvtropes.


Or Good is Dumb (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionDemotion?from=Main.GoodIsDumb), which has since been renamed to Redemption Demotion. It's possible the Giant was making a reference (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html) to the old Space Balls quote

Again, what you treat as a barely-worth-mentioning possibility strikes me as nearly certain. Originated in a popular parody movie, zinged all over the Internet...It's possible that Rich never saw Spaceballs himself, doesn't interact with anyone who ever talks about tropes, and the specific place Rich found "Good is Dumb" was the TVTropes website. But it's not the way to bet.


I can't really prove anything, and I honestly don't stay away at nights worrying about it. It never even occurred to me that suggesting there is a connection might bother some people.

Suggesting there is a connection doesn't bother me. Insisting that Rich bloody well does read TVTropes regularly and it's obvious and there are all these clues and anyone who doesn't consider it obvious that Rich references TVTropes is denying the obvious? That mystifies me. And that's what you've been doing here, not "suggesting there is a connection."

[Turkish Delight]

Not possible. Factual.

I would be surprised to learn that anyone who wrote a comic didn't know the term "Cerberus Syndrome" before reading it on tvtropes.

Ok, I'll take the fall on that one, since I haven't read offline comics in years and never followed Cerebus even when it didn't plunge into misogynist insanity.


Again, what you treat as a barely-worth-mentioning possibility strikes me as nearly certain. Originated in a popular parody movie, zinged all over the Internet...It's possible that Rich never saw Spaceballs himself, doesn't interact with anyone who ever talks about tropes, and the specific place Rich found "Good is Dumb" was the TVTropes website. But it's not the way to bet.

It was a good clue to me, given how often it's used and linked on that site. Space Balls is a decades old movie; that doesn't by any means mean it isn't his central reference, of course, but the relevance of the quote shoots up quite a bit when it's linked to modern usage, and given it's recent prominence on TV Tropes it strikes me as a nice little clue. Not proof, of course.


Suggesting there is a connection doesn't bother me. Insisting that Rich bloody well does read TVTropes regularly and it's obvious and there are all these clues and anyone who doesn't consider it obvious that Rich references TVTropes is denying the obvious? That mystifies me. And that's what you've been doing here, not "suggesting there is a connection."

I began with the assumption that that statement wasn't even a controversial one. Huge numbers of OotS fans have found the comic through TV Tropes, including myself, and around that site at least OotS is one of the most troped-up pieces of fiction around. Before I ever came here, I had read that the OotS forums were almost an informal gathering of tropers. The idea that the relationship is not mutual and the Giant barely knows anything about the place, with all references and links to TV Tropes purely accidentally or imaginary, is one I've only seen forcefully argued in this thread.

So in the face of that, I will back down one level: I think it highly, highly likely and probable that the Giant reads, enjoys and consciously makes reference to TV Tropes, or has done so in the past. Is that statement one that leaves you a bit less mystified?

[Turkish Delight]

And "trope" is not really an obscure word, especially not for someone as well-versed in literature as the Giant.

I'd be curious to see just how well known that word was prior to 2003 outside of those specifically interested in literature. The TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Vocabulary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourVocabulary) entry mentions it as approximately the 67,470th most common English word (http://wordcount.org/main.php), right between 'Llangefni' and 'Lusitania.'

That's changed now, apparently. It's now between 'privies' and 'milliners'!

[Nimrod's Son]

Mostly the amount of myopia in the assumption that he "obviously" reads TV Tropes bothers me.
That's my main issue too. Rich might read TVTropes, and I'd be astounded if he'd never spent at least some time browsing it, even if only once... but as far as in-comic evidence goes, there's nothing whatsoever to indicate that he's ever visited the site in his life. Sure it's ARGUABLE that he's referenced it at times, but it's a very long way from being "obvious".


Space Balls is a decades old movie; that doesn't by any means mean it isn't his central reference, of course, but the relevance of the quote shoots up quite a bit when it's linked to modern usage, and given it's recent prominence on TV Tropes it strikes me as a nice little clue. Not proof, of course.
Rich is pretty much the exact right age for Spaceballs to have been a staple of his adolescence, like it was with many people of that age. I think you're seriously underestimating how big that film was, and overestimating the percentage of jokes that Rich is aiming exclusively at the internet generation and TVTropes crowd.

As a general rule, if I had to guess whether any given reference is to either a classic sci-fi/fantasy work or a single (overrated, poorly-executed, too-many-cooks mess of a) website, I'd go for the former.

Gosh darn, I nearly kept my personal feelings about TVTropes to myself then, too. So much for neutrality...

[Turkish Delight]

The main problem is how difficult it is to prove anything, since the entire foundation of TV Tropes is that all of the tropes are from someplace else, as well as a majority of the trope names. TV Tropes has no real original content of it's own beyond the specific trope names; if you want to definitively nail down a direct connection, you have to catch someone in-comic saying something like 'Xanatos Roulette.' Even then, does a character in a 3.5 comic calling a race 'Always Chaotic Evil' mean that the writer has read TV Tropes and is making a reference, or is it just a coincidence due to that race being...well, always Chaotic Evil? If a villain is called a 'Complete Monster'...well, that's certainly happened quite a lot well before any web sites popped up, which is actually why it supplied the trope name in the first place.

Beyond that, any of the bazillions of tropes OotS loves to indulge in could have come from anywhere. And even if we were able to catch Rich Burlow sitting down and reading TV Tropes and enjoying a specific entry, it doesn't mean that entry was the one that inspired any given use of a trope. As such, everything comes down to feel and specific wording, references to tropes that may mean nothing at all or may be a sly wink to the TV Tropes reading audience.

I never really noticed until now what a pain it is pinning down specific and direct references rather than a broad whole which gives nice little clues to readers of that site. Rather frustrating.

So do I believe that Rich Burlow reads TV Tropes, or has done so regularly in the past? With a tiny bit less certainty than I did at the start of this thread, but with still an overall feel of certainty. But ah, I can prove nothing and neither can anyone else unless Mr. Burlow tells us directly.

[Turkish Delight]

As a general rule, if I had to guess whether any given reference is to either a classic sci-fi/fantasy work or

I'd say it's both. Two with one stone. Rich makes jokes appealing to young and old, and best of all both at once; that's part of why the comic doesn't suck.

But this entire line of argument makes me feel old, since while I'm of the age that had a lot of fun with Spaceballs. Let's move on.


(overrated, poorly-executed, too-many-cooks mess of a) website

There's a lot of crap and lot of great stuff. It all depends on your tolerance for sifting through it.

The site is chaotic. I like chaos.

[Nimrod's Son]

So do I believe that Rich Burlow reads TV Tropes, or has done so regularly in the past? With a tiny bit less certainty than I did at the start of this thread, but with still an overall feel of certainty. But ah, I can prove nothing and neither can anyone else unless Mr. Burlow tells us directly.
I prefer to assume he doesn't, until evidence arises to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. :smalltongue:

After all, plenty of people assumed he was a Pratchett fan until he came out and said he'd deliberately never read any.

In War & XPs, Rich gives his primary inspirations as Babylon 5, Starman, The Seven Samurai, and MythAdventures - with some other notables being Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Gargoyles, Red Dwarf, Buffy, Watership Down and Farscape. With a selection of influences that wide, and clearly plenty of literary, cinematic and pop-culture nous besides, Rich doesn't need to scour TVTropes for ideas. Hell, he doesn't even need to glance.


There's a lot of crap and lot of great stuff. It all depends on your tolerance for sifting through it.
Undoubtedly true, but then I already learned most of the good stuff in film school, and I don't want to go sifting through dreck on the off-chance I may discover some titbit.

[Petrocorus]

Not only it seems obvious to me that The Giant read TVTropes, but this troper would not be wondered if he were an active troper.

And on a related note, we can say that TVTropers are fond of OOTS. I found far more reference on TvTrope about it than about the Vorkosigan Saga, some famous TV shows, etc..

[Nimrod's Son]

And on a related note, we can say that TVTropers are fond of OOTS.
Quite so. To the point that it's got everyone blindly assuming it's a two-way street, it seems. :smallsigh:

[Turkish Delight]

With a selection of influences that wide, and clearly plenty of literary, cinematic and pop-culture nous besides, Rich doesn't need to scour TVTropes for ideas. Hell, he doesn't even need to glance.

I understand now this is the fundamental reason why the suggestion raises such controversy, but one can be perfectly aware of a whole variety of tropes and still get great amusement out of seeing people try to explain them and then start throwing out examples from all kinds of media. TV Tropes isn't a school of any sort; it's just a fun web site. You can be intimately familiar with a trope and still find the way it's named and described and played with hilarious.

There is not the slightest shame in Rich acknowledging that he reads the site, only in the unrelated accusation that he rips it off. I don't believe the latter for a second and I don't think anyone else in this thread believes such either, regardless of whatever past accusations have been made.

[Optimystik]

And on a related note, we can say that TVTropers are fond of OOTS. I found far more reference on TvTrope about it than about the Vorkosigan Saga, some famous TV shows, etc..

It's also a lot easier to read a free webcomic (even just one page) than to find an old TV Show or movie, and then dig/sit through it until you find the Trope Namer within. Tropes work better if more people get your reference - they are communal affairs by necessity.

[Jimorian]

Actually, Rich really gets his references from the Turkey City Lexicon. :smalltongue:

(Just kidding, but TVTropes is at least a decade late to its own game.)

In reality, TVTropes is simply redundant to anybody regularly immersed in the pop culture of their day. Combine that with Rich's deep deep DEEP understanding of the writing process and the foundations of literature, and you can see why thinking that such a superficial site as TVTropes as anything more than maybe a glancing source of his insights, is seen as dissing his abilities.

Because a trope is simply a pattern, and anybody who pays attention to the storytelling in all forms of media, as a writer like Rich would do, is going to pick up those patterns in the wild with just a few exposures to them. All TVTropes does is take each of those obvious patterns and beats it with a very non-vivacious equine.

[Turkish Delight]

Actually, Rich really gets his references from the Turkey City Lexicon. :smalltongue:

(Just kidding, but TVTropes is at least a decade late to its own game.)

In reality, TVTropes is simply redundant to anybody regularly immersed in the pop culture of their day. Combine that with Rich's deep deep DEEP understanding of the writing process and the foundations of literature, and you can see why thinking that such a superficial site as TVTropes as anything more than maybe a glancing source of his insights, is seen as dissing his abilities.

Because a trope is simply a pattern, and anybody who pays attention to the storytelling in all forms of media, as a writer like Rich would do, is going to pick up those patterns in the wild with just a few exposures to them. All TVTropes does is take each of those obvious patterns and beats it with a very non-vivacious equine.

Now you guys are almost starting to sound like Rich wouldn't read the site because it's 'beneath' him. Pfft. I, at least, have never accused the Giant of being a snob.

You don't read tropes because you want a deep understanding of the storytelling process. You read tropes because they're time-passing fun even if you already have a deep understanding of the storytelling process. The purpose is fun. Is it dissing the Giant to suggest he might find something fun?

[PallElendro]

I estimate an 81.76% chance this thread will be locked.

[Nimrod's Son]

There is not the slightest shame in Rich acknowledging that he reads the site, only in the unrelated accusation that he rips it off.
Absolutely. Until such time as he does acknowledge that he reads the site, though, I'm going to assume he doesn't.


I don't believe the latter for a second and I don't think anyone else in this thread believes such either, regardless of whatever past accusations have been made.
This thread is fine. But I remember arguing on one occasion with someone who not only thought that Rich got all his ideas from there, but that the entire pupose of the comic was not to parody D&D, but to tick off each trope from the site one at a time. He even insisted that TVTropes' definitions of good and evil were more relevant to the strip than anything from D&D's actual alignment system; it was quite a sight to behold.

Until all his posts were scrubbed and he got banned, that is. :smallamused:


Now you guys are almost starting to sound like Rich wouldn't read the site because it's 'beneath' him.
Not at all. But as you said yourself, TVTropes is an ENTERTAINMENT website. As a creative resource it's pretty much useless, and I just don't feel comfortable speculating on what Rich does in his spare time for fun. :smallwink:

[Jimorian]

Now you guys are almost starting to sound like Rich wouldn't read the site because it's 'beneath' him. Pfft. I, at least, have never accused the Giant of being a snob.

You don't read tropes because you want a deep understanding of the storytelling process. You read tropes because they're time-passing fun even if you already have a deep understanding of the storytelling process. The purpose is fun. Is it dissing the Giant to suggest he might find something fun?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if he does indeed go to TVTropes for fun, or to see why so many playgrounders mention it here on the boards, he's already going to recognize 99% of what is there.

Heck, when I read it, there are very few things that I haven't already identified from my own experiences, I just rarely give them names and classify them. And in many cases I'll have forgotten the particular references where I originally noticed the pattern, but it's still already in my memory banks.

Which is why it's very safe to assume that when Rich pops open a trope within OOTS, he's doing so from his own reference frame and not as a shoutout. Heck, if he read it on TVTropes, he's more likely to NOT use it in the comic because that's just how writers' minds work.

[Petrocorus]

and I just don't feel comfortable speculating on what Rich does in his spare time for fun. :smallwink:

Playing DnD with the Snarl ?!:smallwink:

[Haven]

Even then, does a character in a 3.5 comic calling a race 'Always Chaotic Evil' mean that the writer has read TV Tropes and is making a reference, or is it just a coincidence due to that race being...well, always Chaotic Evil?

I know this was supposed to be a rhetorical question, or failing that a question that is supposed to one or the other, but the answer is "neither, because that exact phrase has been in the Monster Manual for decades." The same general idea applies to literally all the rest of your "evidence". TVTropes is just making the same references that the Giant is making; the Giant is not referring to TVTropes' references to some other things. I suspect part of what people find offensive here is that it's not crediting those things.

Though the part where you'd know this if you were clicking on your own links is also probably a factor.

[nilhouse]

I'd be curious to see just how well known that word was prior to 2003 outside of those specifically interested in literature. The TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Vocabulary (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourVocabulary) entry mentions it as approximately the 67,470th most common English word (http://wordcount.org/main.php), right between 'Llangefni' and 'Lusitania.'

That's changed now, apparently. It's now between 'privies' and 'milliners'!

I, and many other people were familiar with the word trope before a webpage was made about tropes. There just isn't a huge use for the word. Furthermore, is there anyone who didn't learn about the Lusitania in Highschool? It is pretty much the reason the USA joined WW1. Just because a word is not commonly used doesn't mean lots of people don't know it.

Also, it seems like TV tropes should be renamed to Anime and Web Comic Tropes, since that is what about 75% of their references are too.

[Ceaon]

Furthermore, is there anyone who didn't learn about the Lusitania in Highschool?

Most people not from the USA, I guess. :smallwink: I'm guessing it was the boat sank by the German sub?
But I think we're arguing in the style of "Yes he does", "No he doesn't". We will not get an answer to the OP's question unless Rich will comment on it himself.
More importantly: does it matter?
Even if (IF) Rich is somehow plagiarizing TvTropes and thereby turning the TvTropes forum into a webcomic... wouldn't that be awesome? :smalltongue:

[Shale]

Is Rich an active reader of TV Tropes, a la David Morgan-Mar? I have no idea. Is he aware of the site, and the titles of some of its more popular pages? My bet would be yes, in all likelihood. A good writer knows his audience, and without TV Tropes popularizing the term, I really doubt Rich would expect his readers to recognize an industry term like "lampshade hanging," or to recognize Cerebus the Aardvark from an offhand reference without something else, like TV Tropes, pointing it out first. Cerebus might have made a mark on the comics world, but it's a print comic - so a different medium, and you can't rely on a lot of readership carryover from the web to print - that sold in the four digits per issue, and underwent its transition from parody to serious story before much of the OotS audience was even born. Likewise, lampshade hanging (or hanging a lantern, etc etc) might be a well-used industry term, but OotS isn't for an industry audience.

[Silver2195]

Rich clearly reads TV Tropes, and I'm extremely surprised that anyone denies this. It's obvious from the Lampshade Hanging of Lampshade Hanging. Yes, a couple people used the phrase before TV Tropes did, but he wouldn't have expected his audience to recognize it if it hadn't been for TV Tropes.

[Fragenstein]

Even if (IF) Rich is somehow plagiarizing TvTropes and thereby turning the TvTropes forum into a webcomic... wouldn't that be awesome? :smalltongue:

Good lord, no. That entire site seems to play itself out as a haven for uncreative hacks who have given up all pretense of originality. Either that or they feel creativity itself can only be accessed through mindless buzzwords and formulae.

Regardless, Rich is much better than that.

[Turkish Delight]

I, and many other people were familiar with the word trope before a webpage was made about tropes. There just isn't a huge use for the word. Furthermore, is there anyone who didn't learn about the Lusitania in Highschool? It is pretty much the reason the USA joined WW1. Just because a word is not commonly used doesn't mean lots of people don't know it.

Also, it seems like TV tropes should be renamed to Anime and Web Comic Tropes, since that is what about 75% of their references are too.

As an American, I'm aware of 'Lusitania', but I wasn't aware of 'trope' until TV Tropes. I'm currently content to remain ignorant of 'Llangefni.'

Regardless, the point is it's usage until the arrival of that web site has been sporadic, at best. I'm very happy that you learned 'trope', as have an unspecified 'many.' I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it is a piece of vocabulary so common and widely known to suggest it's sudden appearance in a Web Comic is unrelated to an enormous web site that has spread the term to the far ends of the Internet....but that's just me.

[Turkish Delight]

I know this was supposed to be a rhetorical question, or failing that a question that is supposed to one or the other, but the answer is "neither, because that exact phrase has been in the Monster Manual for decades."

Well, no, actually. 3rd edition apparently started using 'Always Chaotic Evil' in the Monster Manual; previous to that, in 2nd edition, the alignment in the Monster Manual would just read 'Chaotic Evil', without qualifiers, for things like Drow. But that's not very important, nor in the context of what I was talking about was the specific trope I used for an example.


The same general idea applies to literally all the rest of your "evidence". TVTropes is just making the same references that the Giant is making

The references aren't so important in this case as the fact that they use the exact same phrasing as TV Tropes. In many cases, this proves nothing; the 'Always Chaotic Evil' example demonstrates that. In some cases, above all with the Lampshading example, it does indicate something given the abundance of alternative phrases for the same phenomenon that could have been used, but weren't.

But it proves nothing, does it? It is merely a hint, a suggestion, a possibility. As Shale implied above, however, I think what we think of that possibility depends a lot on a question: to what extent is the Giant playing to his audience?

I had never heard of Cerebus Syndrome previous to TV Tropes; I thought it was invented for that site. How many others are like me, and to what extent does the Giant care that that reference would mean nothing to such people minus a massively popular wiki-style site that spreads it's meaning to a wide variety of readers? We know there are an abundance of tropers who read OotS; does Rich get a kick out of tossing them a bone every now and then, or does he not particularly care who the readers are and what they know and primarily wants to make jokes he and possibly only a minority of readers find funny, or even comprehensible?

[Haven]

I had never heard of Cerebus Syndrome previous to TV Tropes; I thought it was invented for that site. How many others are like me

I would assume "no one", because, well, at risk of repeating myself:

Only people who did not read the TV Tropes page think that. Please start reading your own links before using them as arguments.


, and to what extent does the Giant care that that reference would mean nothing to such people minus a massively popular wiki-style site that spreads it's meaning to a wide variety of readers?

Websnark was hugely influential before TV Tropes was (back when it actually updated anyway). The trope is named because it was a popular term, not the other way around.

In almost all cases, TVTropes is an effect, not a cause.


We know there are an abundance of tropers who read OotS; does Rich get a kick out of tossing them a bone every now and then, or does he not particularly care who the readers are and what they know and primarily wants to make jokes he and possibly only a minority of readers find funny, or even comprehensible?

Only a very small minority of people who read the comic come to the forums. However, from the inside of this community, it seems like the fanbase has a troper majority because TVTropes and its terminology is so infectious.

So: tossing the tropers a bone would be a joke that a only minority of readers would understand.

[babeeroniea]

I have never read TvTropes.

[B. Dandelion]

I think Kish has the right idea -- if the Giant steers clear of Discworld to avoid contamination, it'd certainly make sense for him to do the same with tropes. I haven't yet seen anything to indicate he's a fan follower of tropes, just that he's familiar with the same material. While he expects his fans to be at least somewhat genre savvy, I don't think you actually need TVTropes to get the majority of the material any more than you need to have played D&D to understand why "I think I failed a spot check!" is funny. Context is everything.

[Turkish Delight]

I would assume "no one", because, well, at risk of repeating myself:

Only people who did not read the TV Tropes page think that. Please start reading your own links before using them as arguments.

I did read the entire Cerebus Syndrome trope page in the past. This time I breezed it and missed the link. I've already conceded TV Tropes didn't come up with it a number of posts before. So sue me.


Websnark was hugely influential before TV Tropes was (back when it actually updated anyway). The trope is named because it was a popular term, not the other way around.

That's generally the way tropes work...which, as I believe I mentioned, is why it's such a pain to prove whether or not something is a thrown bone to the tropers or a freak accident which just happens to carry a popular trope's name. I will agree now that in this case that it's more fairly a reference to Websnark, which originated the term and which as a web comic author Rich would likely be familiar with, and leave it be.

But let's go back to the initial example: Lampshading. We've already established that this particular trick goes by a wide variety of names. It also seems to be a concept which is not commonly known by name to people outside the 'industry'; in other words, minus TV Tropes, only a minority of readers would understand the reference to 'Lampshading' if used on it's own. By the time it saw use in the comic, as well, TV Tropes was massively popular.

Certainly we should give Rich the credit to believe he understood the concept quite well, TV Tropes or not, for those to whom the idea of Rich 'owing' anything to that web site rankles terrible. In these circumstances, I suppose we can also assume that Rich knew nothing about the trope. We can think that he just happened to like that particular name for that particular trick chosen out of all the possible names for it, and we can think that he either thought lots of people would get the reference immediately and make it work or that he threw it in as a gag merely for the minority who would get it. He's done it before, not so far-fetched.

We can think all these things, if we really want. Or we can assume that Rich knows quite a lot of a web site on which his strip is massively popular, perhaps enjoys it himself, and chose to shape the reference in exactly such a way that any troper would immediately get it.

I'm going for option two, personally. But you're free to believe what you wish.


So: tossing the tropers a bone would be a joke that a only minority of readers would understand.

A much larger minority than most, and one which is very specifically tuned into his web comic in particular, unlike many. It's not a wasted joke, in other words, even if it's merely a bone.

[Turkish Delight]

Here I said I don't stay up nights thinking about whether or not the Giant visits a web site and now it's 3:00 AM in Taiwan and I'm up arguing back and forth about tiny details that indicate whether or not the Giant visits a web site. A highlight of my forum posting 'career' if ever there was one.

G'night, folks. It's been fun, but the way things are going I'm guessing this whole thing will probably be locked by the time I get up, if for no other reason than for the sheer maddening pointlessness of it all.

[Fish]

A good writer knows his audience, and without TV Tropes popularizing the term, I really doubt Rich would expect his readers to recognize an industry term like "lampshade hanging," or to recognize Cerebus the Aardvark from an offhand reference without something else....
Think about what you're saying. You're saying that a good writer is more likely to

a) assume all his readers are intimately familiar with exactly one source material, or
b) assume his readers are familiar in varying degrees with a wide variety of material that do not necessarily overlap.

I know I wouldn't pick a) myself. Rich himself said he doesn't rely even on the fact that all his readers know D&D, even though it's a comic ABOUT D&D. Why would he assume everyone knows about an obscure website?

Some of you are trying to paint him as familiar with the site because you are; I and others are warning you not to jump to conclusions. I know "Good is dumb" and Cerebus and "fighting in the shade" because I'm 38 years old. I saw Spaceballs; I read some Cerebus; I saw the "fighting in the shade" line on a Magic: The Gathering card. Don't assume Rich cannot possibly have seen these things from the source also.

[Cleverdan22]

I saw the "fighting in the shade" line on a Magic: The Gathering card.

Ah, but was it before or after 300?

I dunno, I think this whole thread argument seems kinda pointless. I'm sure he's read some TV tropes, as it is pretty widely mentioned here and he does read at least some of his own forums. Its clear that he doesn't do things in his comic based on tropes he's read, but a few side jokes have certainly become more accessible to readers because of TV tropes.

[Petrocorus]

So: tossing the tropers a bone would be a joke that a only minority of readers would understand.

Indeed, i didn't get it.

[BlackKettle]

So: tossing the tropers a bone would be a joke that a only minority of readers would understand.


Think about what you're saying. You're saying that a good writer is more likely to

a) assume all his readers are intimately familiar with exactly one source material, or
b) assume his readers are familiar in varying degrees with a wide variety of material that do not necessarily overlap.



I think you'll find that Rich does reference particular things in his webcomic.

That sentence doesn't even really mean anything so I hope you're willing to agree me with so far.

Think back, Rich has referenced Dune and Marvel Comics (just a couple things off the top of my head) in a comic about D&D. Now, does he expect everyone to get these references? I doubt it. Nevertheless, they are there because a fair number of his readers will get the jokes. Why is it so hard to believe that TV Tropes is also referenced? It's another pop culture entertainment source (like the Dune novels/games and superheroes) that Rich uses because it's funny to reference something out-of-universe.

Now, if you wanted to get REALLY defensive about it I'm sure you could find examples of enormous worms and humans with spider-like abilities that pre-date these two sources. Fantastic! That doesn't mean that it isn't at least more likely that Rich is doing his fans a favor by making reference to the source that they are more familiar with.

[Math_Mage]

Good lord, no. That entire site seems to play itself out as a haven for uncreative hacks who have given up all pretense of originality. Either that or they feel creativity itself can only be accessed through mindless buzzwords and formulae.

Regardless, Rich is much better than that.

*agreed* that OOTS is a lot more than a replaying of TV Tropes.

*disagreed* that TV Tropes is the hangout of uncreative hacks who trade originality for buzzwords. I don't think you'll find a single troper who thinks that literature is no more than the sum of its tropes, for example. Tropes Are Not Bad, but Tropes Are Not Good, either. Just because someone realizes that a buzzword can be used to describe a particular scene, character, or narrative does not mean that said entity is reduced to that buzzword.

[hamishspence]

Wikipedia is mentioned in SoD- Eugene's celestial evaluation has, as a black mark for him, his "editing his own Wikipedia article"

So at least one website has appeared in OoTS material so far.

[Kish]

Why is it so hard to believe that TV Tropes is also referenced? It's another pop culture entertainment source
No, it's not.

Or rather, it is. But putting any of the tropes catalogued at TVTropes in the webcomic isn't referencing TVTropes. "Good is Dumb" is a reference to Spaceballs. The sandworm and the spice are references to Dune. "I blame Cerberus" is a reference to the Cerberus comic. Whether Rich gets his references to other sources from TVTropes, and whether Rich has made a direct reference to TVTropes, are two different questions. To Question 1, the answer is: Unknowable, unless you can produce a direct quote from Rich. To Question 2, I'm pretty sure the answer is an unambiguous no. I mean, it's certainly possible that one of the demon roaches mentions a website that catalogues all manner of tropes at some point...But I don't remember seeing that, and I don't think it's because I missed it.

[Shale]

I know I wouldn't pick a) myself. Rich himself said he doesn't rely even on the fact that all his readers know D&D, even though it's a comic ABOUT D&D. Why would he assume everyone knows about an obscure website?


And yet he's made a ton of jokes that only make sense to people who know D&D. What gives you the impression that he wouldn't make a reference to something a bit more obscure for a one-panel one-liner?

Regarding the Cerebus Syndrome bit, I would put money that far more people in Rich's audience read Websnark or TV Tropes (never mind both combined) than ever read the original Cerebus comics (again, we're talking about books with print runs in the 8,000 range and a reputation for being written by somebody bat**** insane), so a reference to the comics would be obscure by comparison.

[Fish]

Ah, but was it before or after 300?
Well before the movie: I saw it on a Magic card that was copyrighted in 1993 or so (beta series). I also saw it in the video game "Myth: The Fallen Lords" by Bungie around 1997. Frank Miller's 300 series came out in 1998.

Of course, the "fight them in the shade" quote comes from Herodotus and his account of the Battle of Thermopylae, written c. 440 BC, so it ain't exactly recent. Only a youngun would imagine that an old chestnut was invented in the last 2 years or that a website is the most logical place for someone to have seen a 2000-year-old line.

If Rich made a joke about "let them eat cake," would you assume he'd read it on TV Tropes, or in a history book?

[afarrell]

The references aren't so important in this case as the fact that they use the exact same phrasing as TV Tropes.

I had never heard of Cerebus Syndrome previous to TV Tropes

But he doesn't say Cerebus Syndrome, he says Cerebus, a long-running comic book series which started in parody of Swords & Sorcery, and then turned SRS. I would be sort of amazed if he hadn't heard of it, either through his own interests or from people pointing out the similarities.


It's another pop culture entertainment source (like the Dune novels/games and superheroes)

Except that it's not a source.

[BlackKettle]

Whether Rich gets his references to other sources from TVTropes, and whether Rich has made a direct reference to TVTropes, are two different questions... To Question 2, I'm pretty sure the answer is an unambiguous no. I mean, it's certainly possible that one of the demon roaches mentions a website that catalogues all manner of tropes at some point...But I don't remember seeing that, and I don't think it's because I missed it.

I think you're trying too hard to not find references here. Rich does not have to explicitly mention a "website that lists tropes" in be referencing TV Tropes. As another poster put it, he can make a nod to it's readers by mentioning a literary device that they would be more familiar with than the majority of his readers.

Some tropes are so common that everyone knows them. Others, like Xanatos Gambit, Cerebus Syndrome, or Lampshade Hanging (when mentioned by name) will be better known because of TV Tropes than because of the original source.

Now, as you said of Question , I think the answer to Question 2 is unknowable without any word from Rich. I'm just saying that people need to look at TV Tropes as a popular culture reference like Dune and Marvel instead of like "the hack's toolkit". If you do, I'm sure you'll find it much easier to see and accept the references.

[Fish]

And yet he's made a ton of jokes that only make sense to people who know D&D. What gives you the impression that he wouldn't make a reference to something a bit more obscure for a one-panel one-liner?
Of course he makes jokes about a wide variety of things: he tied together "Tge Odyssey" and "X-Men," for heaven's sake. The question is whether he bases the plot off of a single source. Rich has said specifically in his commentary that he sets up things carefully so even non-D&Ders get the idea. What makes you think he'd base the whole web comic off of TV Tropes and not do the same?

... so a reference to the comics would be obscure by comparison.
And I see his books for sale in a COMIC BOOK SHOP, and because Rich writes a COMIC, I assume the reference to a COMIC would not be lost on the readers.

But hey, draw your own conclusions.

[Shale]

A comic book that ended a year after OotS started, with fewer readers in a month than Rich's comic gets on a very bad day. I'm not saying that nobody reads comics, I'm saying that even among comics fans, very few people know Cerebus firsthand. If he were to reference anything about the book other than its title character or "Cerebus Syndrome," a term popularized wholly by secondhand sources like, yes, TV Tropes, or maybe the fact that Dave Sim hates feminists, I guarantee there would be more "I don't get it" responses to that line than to any other comic he has ever written.

[afarrell]

than ever read the original Cerebus comics (again, we're talking about books with print runs in the 8,000 range and a reputation for being written by somebody bat**** insane)

You're showing your youth there - Cerebus's small print run was more than made up for in sales of the collections (the first one made $150,000 in a few weeks, in the early 80s), and there was a good 17 years when he wasn't crazy, and was pretty big news. As a for example, he was one of the four guest writers on Spawn #8-11, with Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and Frank Miller.

[Kish]

Now, as you said of Question 1, I think the answer to Question 2 is unknowable without any word from Rich. I'm just saying that people need to look at TV Tropes as a popular culture reference like Dune and Marvel instead of like "the hack's toolkit".
One of those is a value judgment, and, as such, a matter of opinion. The other is a flatly inaccurate statement of purpose. It's meant to be a repository of tropes, not a source in and of itself. If you think a trope appearing in OotS is a reference to TVTropes...sorry, but you're using the words wrong, as should be immediately obvious from the fact that it's possible to get to "I blame Cerebus" without going through TVTropes.

Again, whether references to other sources came through TVTropes to get to OotS is up for grabs. For whether there are actual references to TVTropes itself in OotS, the answer is unambiguous and negative--and, not to put too fine a point on it, gets more obviously negative by your claiming that references to other things that may or may not have passed through TVTropes on their way from Marvel Comics to OotS actually qualify as references to TVTropes.

[Asta Kask]

Except that it's not a source.

That's a semantic question. They're gathered together in a convenient place, so you might as well call it a source. It's at least a lake with many tributaries.

[Doug Lampert]

You're showing your youth there - Cerebus's small print run was more than made up for in sales of the collections (the first one made $150,000 in a few weeks, in the early 80s), and there was a good 17 years when he wasn't crazy, and was pretty big news. As a for example, he was one of the four guest writers on Spawn #8-11, with Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and Frank Miller.
Yep, Cerebus was POPULAR at one time. I didn't read it, but I knew at least five people who owned multiple collections. Claiming Cerebus has to come from TVtropes is only slightly ahead of claiming that "Always Chaotic Evil" has to have come from TVTropes in terms of sanity and good sense.

No. Rich and MANY of his readers will have known about Cerebus long before TVTropes existed.

Look, the odds are Rich reads TVTropes, he reads at least some of these boards, and they reference TVTropes all the time. But NOTHING that's been cited as coming from TVTropes needs to have come from there. Nothing! It's ALL stuff that was widely known to people with any interest in writting, or theater, or comics, or D&D, or multiple categories of those, LONG LONG before it got on TVTropes, that's why it's ON TVTropes!

[BlackKettle]

One of those is a value judgment, and, as such, a matter of opinion. The other is a flatly inaccurate statement of purpose. It's meant to be a repository of tropes, not a source in and of itself. If you think a trope appearing in OotS is a reference to TVTropes...sorry, but you're using the words wrong, as should be immediately obvious from the fact that it's possible to get to "I blame Cerebus" without going through TVTropes.

Again, whether references to other sources came through TVTropes to get to OotS is up for grabs. For whether there are actual references to TVTropes itself in OotS, the answer is unambiguous and negative.

It's not necessarily a reference to TV Tropes of course. That's unknowable, as I said.

However, you can only not say that the question of whether Rich is providing a nod to readers of TV Tropes is "unambiguous and negative." It is similarly unknowable. Certainly it is possible to know about and use a trope without going through TV Tropes, no one is disputing that. However, it has made many of them much more accessible to the average reader. So you have to ask yourself whether Rich is making a nod to the fanbase of the more obscure yet genuine material (the original work) or the more popular secondary source (TV Tropes). My point is that it is, in fact, unknowable.

EDIT:


Again, whether references to other sources came through TVTropes to get to OotS is up for grabs. For whether there are actual references to TVTropes itself in OotS, the answer is unambiguous and negative--and, not to put too fine a point on it, gets more obviously negative by your claiming that references to other things that may or may not have passed through TVTropes on their way from Marvel Comics to OotS actually qualify as references to TVTropes.

It seems like you missed what I was saying by your response here.

I said Marvel and Dune were like TV Tropes in that they were referenced. I didn't say that they were referenced through TV Tropes.

[Kish]

I take issue with your paraphrase.

Whether or not I could theoretically say Rich hasn't "provided a nod to readers of TVTropes," I can certainly say that Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes. Watch, I'll do it again: Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes. :smalltongue:

And no, I got what you were saying. Again, TVTropes is not a source and has never been directly referenced. Suggesting people should view a repository of tropes as an source in and of itself and believe that it's been referenced directly even though it hasn't is not a good idea; it doesn't lead anywhere that makes sense. Nor, for that matter, would I expect the designer of TVTropes itself to be pleased that you're trying to argue that TVTropes should be viewed as a source like Marvel Comics or Dune!

[Haven]

It's not necessarily a reference to TV Tropes of course. That's unknowable, as I said.

However, you can only not say that the question of whether Rich is providing a nod to readers of TV Tropes is "unambiguous and negative." It is similarly unknowable. Certainly it is possible to know about and use a trope without going through TV Tropes, no one is disputing that. However, it has made many of them much more accessible to the average reader. So you have to ask yourself whether Rich is making a nod to the fanbase of the more obscure yet genuine material (the original work) or the more popular secondary source (TV Tropes). My point is that it is, in fact, unknowable.


It's still a questionable assumption to assume TV Tropes is "more popular". I contend it seems that way because it's moderately well-known on these fora, but that's only a fraction of a fraction of the comic's readers.

[BlackKettle]

I take issue with your paraphrase.

Whether or not I could theoretically say Rich hasn't "provided a nod to readers of TVTropes," I can certainly say that Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes. Watch, I'll do it again: Rich has never directly referenced TVTropes.

And no, I got what you were saying. Again, TVTropes is not a source and has never been directly referenced. Suggesting people should view a repository of tropes as an source in and of itself and believe that it's been referenced directly even though it hasn't is not a good idea; it doesn't lead anywhere that makes sense.

I think we're at the point of arguing semantics here.


It's still a questionable assumption to assume TV Tropes is "more popular". I contend it seems that way because it's moderately well-known on these fora, but that's only a fraction of a fraction of the comic's readers.

Even with that doubt, my point is that you cannot know which audience Rich is aiming his references at. Maybe it's even both. My posts have been in response to what I feel to be a hostility to the idea that Rich could read TV Tropes. I was hoping to show that it is just another "source of entertainment" (not source in the origins sense, we don't need to go there again) and could be used in a similar way to other "sources of entertainment" such as Marvel, Dune, or Odysseus.

Essentially, my argument is "Rich is not a hack IF he reads TV Tropes"

[afarrell]

That's a semantic question. They're gathered together in a convenient place, so you might as well call it a source. It's at least a lake with many tributaries.

But tributaries that the Giant will be well familiar with anyway.

The main thing it has going for it is snappy names, which is where I'm prepared to make an offer: Lampshade Hanging isn't original to TVTropes, and Cerebus Syndrome isn't in the comic (or original to TVTropes). But there's been mention of the Xanatos Gambit, which from the sounds of it is not actually in the original Gargoyles. Can anyone actually point me at that phrase appearing in the comic?

Because apart from that, y'all seem to be running around in circles, claiming that this thing proves that the Giant read TVTropes because it's like but not identical to this thing, and the Giant would know that, if he read TVTropes.

[Timberboar]

Rich clearly reads TV Tropes, and I'm extremely surprised that anyone denies this. It's obvious from the Lampshade Hanging of Lampshade Hanging.

Or maybe he watches Stargate SG-1, which used and explained the term a good year (or more) before that comic came out.

My explanation is every bit as plausible as yours.

[Doug Lampert]

Or maybe he watches Stargate SG-1, which used and explained the term a good year (or more) before that comic came out.

My explanation is every bit as plausible as yours.

In and of itself that's vastly MORE plausible than TVTropes. Millions of people watched SG-1 regularly, probably only hundreds of thousands hit TVTropes at all often.

The only reason we can say your explantion is ONLY every bit as plausible without laughably understating the case is that there are other reasons to suspect Rich reads TVTropes.

AFAIK I'm the only one I know who reads TVTropes at all. The xkcd reference to TVTropes didn't even make SENSE to several of my friends, because they had no idea what TVTropes is (but note that I do know other xkcd readers). I only really know of it through this place and Irregular Webcomics. It's OBSCURE!

I know a dozen or more people who watched SG-1 regularly, including my wife. If it weren't that it's even MORE PLAUSIBLE that Rich knew the term from elsewhere first I'd say SG-1 had to be the most likely explanation.

The only grounds for thinking Rich has ever even heard of TVTropes are (a) the claim that his references match their names more often than would be expected by random chance (not provable, but quite plausible) and (b) the fact that he may well have been sent there by other readers of his comments sections. That's it. No single reference proves it, and attempts to claim reference X must have come from TVTropes mostly tend to show that the person making the claim is abysmally ignorant and thinks Rich must share his ignorance.

Lampshade hanging? Always Chaotic Evil?!?!

None of that proves anything about TVTropes. I'll agree with another poster that calling something a Xanatos Gambit in comic might prove something, I'm not familiar with any use of that term that predates TVTropes since I don't think the term was ever used in Gargoyles. But AFAICT Xanatos has never been mentioned in comic, much less the specific term Xanatos Gambit.

[BRC]

I would not be surprised if he did, but I wouldn't bet money that he does.

What I WOULD bet money on, is that large numbers of people on TVtropes read OOTS. It seems like OOTS references lots of tropes, however TVtropes encompasses a vast range of potential storytelling devices, and it's commonly linked on this forum, making an apparent connection. And because so many tropers read OOTS, it shows up everywhere on the wiki.

Also, OOTS is a parody of two things that TVtropes has covered extensively, tabletop role playing games, and the Epic Fantasy Adventure in a tolkienesque world. What's more, since it's a Parody, it uses a lot of Tropes intentionally in order to mock them.

Also, remember, Correlation does not equal causation, the trope names on TVtropes are, as far as I remember, NEVER truely self generated. They're either references to something (Cerebus Syndrome, Xanatos's Gambit), or a simple description (Action Girl, Only Sane Man). TVtropes is merely a collection of these things. Assuming that, say, the use of the phrase "Redshirt" is a reference to TVtropes is like hearing somebody say Quixotic and assuming they are referencing Webster's dictionary.

[Conuly]

Or maybe he watches Stargate SG-1, which used and explained the term a good year (or more) before that comic came out.

My explanation is every bit as plausible as yours.

I remember that episode, but I thought they used "hanging a lantern instead".

[Spiky]

As an American, I'm aware of 'Lusitania', but I wasn't aware of 'trope' until TV Tropes. I'm currently content to remain ignorant of 'Llangefni.'

Regardless, the point is it's usage until the arrival of that web site has been sporadic, at best. I'm very happy that you learned 'trope', as have an unspecified 'many.' I'm not entirely sold on the idea that it is a piece of vocabulary so common and widely known to suggest it's sudden appearance in a Web Comic is unrelated to an enormous web site that has spread the term to the far ends of the Internet....but that's just me.
So, do you know the word irony?

[Nimrod's Son]

Heavens above, this one got got busy while I was away...


But let's go back to the initial example: Lampshading. We've already established that this particular trick goes by a wide variety of names. It also seems to be a concept which is not commonly known by name to people outside the 'industry'; in other words, minus TV Tropes, only a minority of readers would understand the reference to 'Lampshading' if used on it's own.
Your definition of the "industry" must be pretty loose, then. I studied film, sure, but I never worked in the industry. I know plenty people who can say the same, and even then that's only talking about the people I know who bothered to take it as a qualification. People who know story convention are by no means limited to "the industry".


Now, if you wanted to get REALLY defensive about it I'm sure you could find examples of enormous worms and humans with spider-like abilities that pre-date these two sources. Fantastic!
Find me another example that not only has enormous worms but also the concept of someone's eyes turning vivid blue after consuming spice and THEN we can debate what that scene was a reference to.


I think you're trying too hard to not find references here. Rich does not have to explicitly mention a "website that lists tropes" in be referencing TV Tropes. As another poster put it, he can make a nod to it's readers by mentioning a literary device that they would be more familiar with than the majority of his readers.
As I've said all along, perhaps he does read it. But then, I positively hate that website and yet I could make a dozen references to it without even having to think. I maybe spent, ooh, an hour or so in total clicking around on that site before deciding that I never want to see it again in my life. But I could still tell you exactly what quite a few of those tropes are, often by name. Especially since people in this forum bang on about it so much. :smallwink:

So, yeah. I know what Lampshade Hanging is (in fact, I've heard it referred to as several things, but that's definitely one of them). I know what a Chekhov's Gun is. I know what a Xanatos Gambit is. I know what a MacGuffin is.

Do I read TVTropes? Am I, in fact, a "Troper"?

Um... God no.

But then again, if I was making a living off a webcomic that had such a vocal TVTropes following amongst my readership, heck yes I'd throw them a vague reference or two every now and again. It still wouldn't mean I'd have to read the damn thing. :smallwink:


A comic book that ended a year after OotS started, with fewer readers in a month than Rich's comic gets on a very bad day. I'm not saying that nobody reads comics, I'm saying that even among comics fans, very few people know Cerebus firsthand. If he were to reference anything about the book other than its title character or "Cerebus Syndrome," a term popularized wholly by secondhand sources like, yes, TV Tropes, or maybe the fact that Dave Sim hates feminists, I guarantee there would be more "I don't get it" responses to that line than to any other comic he has ever written.
I'd never heard of Cerebus when I read that strip, so I immediately Googled it and read the Wikipedia article, amongst a few other things, until I understood what V was talking about. I'm pretty certain I'd never heard of TVTropes at the time, and if it happened to be one of the links Google turned up then I sure didn't notice. The lack of TVTropes didn't prove to be much of a barrier to my understanding, though.


If Rich made a joke about "let them eat cake," would you assume he'd read it on TV Tropes, or in a history book?
There's a difference?!

[Math_Mage]

A case can be made for each individual example that its source path does or doesn't include TV Tropes. But the sheer volume of gratuitous references makes it likely. Most individual pieces of scientific evidence can be argued in many ways; it is the accumulation of evidence that builds consensus behind, say, evolutionary theory. Which is not to imply that either position here is as solid as evolutionary theory, only that it makes more sense to step back and consider the whole than to haggle over every example individually.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Nerd-o-Rama, could I sig your conclusion, please?Sorry, I kind of lost track of this thread. Go right ahead.

I also am going to say that there's not really any "evidence" either way here.

Rich Burlew references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.
TVTropes references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.

Correlation does not imply causation, people.

[Timberboar]

I remember that episode, but I thought they used "hanging a lantern instead".

It has been a long time since I've seen that episode.

I admit the possibility (probability?) that I may be mistaken.

[Petrocorus]

Rich Burlew references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.
TVTropes references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.

Correlation does not imply causation, people.

There even a Trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever) about this: *** Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

However, i myself still think RB's a regular troper.

EDIT: The word filter has blocked the Latin word for "with".

[afarrell]

So, yeah. I know what a Chekhov's Gun is. I know what a Xanatos Gambit is. I know what a MacGuffin is.

But one of these things is not like the others: Chekhov's Gun and MacGuffins were known as such for decades before TVTropes came along!

[Doug Lampert]

Sorry, I kind of lost track of this thread. Go right ahead.

I also am going to say that there's not really any "evidence" either way here.

Rich Burlew references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.
TVTropes references and parodies common fictional tropes and film terms.

Correlation does not imply causation, people.

And I'll debate what the correlation implies in this case: The Order of the Stick is explicitely listed on TVTropes as the trope namer for all of the following:
•And That Would Be Wrong
•Colour Coded For Your Convenience
•Continuity Snarl (in-universe... not for the readers)
•Failed A Spot Check
•Start Of Darkness
•Your Approval Fills Me With Shame

That's six tropes, more than the TOTAL number of references to other tropes cited in this thread as "proving" that Rich reads TVTropes. That's even counting the absurdity of claiming that he might have gotten "Always Chaotic Evil" from TVtropes as a TVTrope reference in the count!

To put it another way, Rich cites so many tropes so often that it's quite possible that he's the TROPE NAMER more often than he follows the exact existing name given on TVTropes when he uses one!

If Rich were really getting names of tropes from TVtropes and using them with any frequency as a shout out to an obscure webpage, then wouldn't that appearant ratio be reversed? Wouldn't MANY of Rich's trope references be to things on the page and only a few to things not yet covered where he could become the Trope Namer?

But in fact Rich references tropes SO OFTEN that he frequently hits tropes not yet referenced on TVTropes (despite the fact that it's a wiki and allegedly so overwhelmingly well known that shout outs to it make sense for a webpage with many thousands of regular readers) and because he beat all those Tropers out Rich becomes the trope namer!

That implies that no small number of references to commonly used terms can possible establish that he reads the page. He'll hit a good number that they HAVE covered by pure coincidence, and ALL of the cited possible references are to tropes with names commonly known prior to TVTropes.

The ONLY good reason to think he's ever been to TVTropes is the frequency with which other people on his discussion board link to it and the fact that he reads parts of the discussion board.

[Petrocorus]

And I'll debate what the correlation implies in this case: The Order of the Stick is explicitely listed on TVTropes as the trope namer for all of the following:
•And That Would Be Wrong
•Colour Coded For Your Convenience
•Continuity Snarl (in-universe... not for the readers)
•Failed A Spot Check
•Start Of Darkness
•Your Approval Fills Me With Shame


Nice done, now i will spend my night reading all this.
You do know that TvTrope will ruin our lives.



The ONLY good reason to think he's ever been to TVTropes is the frequency with which other people on his discussion board link to it and the fact that he reads parts of the discussion board.

I would be really wondered if he never been there given the said frequency.

[Math_Mage]

If Rich were really getting names of tropes from TVtropes and using them with any frequency as a shout out to an obscure webpage, then wouldn't that appearant ratio be reversed? Wouldn't MANY of Rich's trope references be to things on the page and only a few to things not yet covered where he could become the Trope Namer?

But in fact Rich references tropes SO OFTEN that he frequently hits tropes not yet referenced on TVTropes (despite the fact that it's a wiki and allegedly so overwhelmingly well known that shout outs to it make sense for a webpage with many thousands of regular readers) and because he beat all those Tropers out Rich becomes the trope namer!

Objection: being the Trope Namer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropeNamers?from=Main.TropeNamer) is not the same as being the Trope Maker (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropeMakers?from=Main.TropeMaker) (see the 0th law of trope examples (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheZerothLawOfTropeExamples)). These tropes aren't named after their OotS examples because OotS did it first, but rather because the references are especially pithy or fitting, somewhat akin to the Most Triumphant Example (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/MostTriumphantExample).

Which brings up another part of the correlation: Rich could have referenced these tropes any number of ways, just as TV Tropes could have named them any number of different things. But they each used the same name on several occasions (excluding the Trope Namer cases, of course). On the one hand, that's incredibly prone to sampling bias; on the other, it would be even if it were true.

[Drolyt]

I got lost somewhere in the third page, but I just want to say that people need to calm down a bit. There doesn't seem to be any personal attacks or anything, but a lot of people come off as if they are horribly offended by one side or the other. At any rate I think it is highly likely The Giant has at least heard of TvTropes, but I have no opinion as to whether he reads it regularly. I do find it likely that at some point in the past he may have had a wiki walk. By the way until recently pretty much all trope names were named after something from fiction, so it is entirely possible that someone using the same names were simply using the same source. Two of the arguments I've heard on here, Lampshade Hanging and Cerebrus Syndrome, were in common use before TvTropes. In fact I had heard the former before I ever heard of Tvtropes.

[Math_Mage]

I got lost somewhere in the third page, but I just want to say that people need to calm down a bit. There doesn't seem to be any personal attacks or anything, but a lot of people come off as if they are horribly offended by one side or the other.

Well, on the one hand, there have been posts stating that TV Tropes is a cesspool of unoriginality and stagnation, which is horribly offensive to tropers. On the other, there have been posts eagerly embracing the possibility that OotS is making liberal use of TV Tropes, a horribly offensive notion to people who have the aforementioned opinion about that place.

So yeah, things could stand to cool down around here.

[blunk]

Remember that South Park episode with the Family Guy writers being manatees? Let's just say, thank God tvtropes has a "random item" link!!!

Alternate response: who cares?

[Kish]

Well, on the one hand, there have been posts stating that TV Tropes is a cesspool of unoriginality and stagnation, which is horribly offensive to tropers. On the other, there have been posts eagerly embracing the possibility that OotS is making liberal use of TV Tropes, a horribly offensive notion to people who have the aforementioned opinion about that place.
And there have been posts asserting as fact that Rich uses TVTropes, which is an offensive notion to people who are generally indifferent to the website but don't think anyone should be claiming knowledge they don't have. :smalltongue:

[Nerd-o-rama]

I got lost somewhere in the third page, but I just want to say that people need to calm down a bit. There doesn't seem to be any personal attacks or anything, but a lot of people come off as if they are horribly offended by one side or the other. At any rate I think it is highly likely The Giant has at least heard of TvTropes, but I have no opinion as to whether he reads it regularly. I do find it likely that at some point in the past he may have had a wiki walk. By the way until recently pretty much all trope names were named after something from fiction, so it is entirely possible that someone using the same names were simply using the same source. Two of the arguments I've heard on here, Lampshade Hanging and Cerebrus Syndrome, were in common use before TvTropes. In fact I had heard the former before I ever heard of Tvtropes.

The only reason I'm offended is by people who continue to Fail Logic Forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever), but that happens everywhere on the internet so I'm not actually surprised or offended; just trying to speak firmly to get my point across.

I'm also not saying Rich doesn't read TVTropes, or reference it in the comic, I just think it's a silly assumption to make. It might be true, it might not.

EDIT: also your banner image is too wide, although not by a terribly huge margin. It just makes the page look off.

[Drolyt]

The only reason I'm offended is by people who continue to Fail Logic Forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever), but that happens everywhere on the internet so I'm not actually surprised or offended; just trying to speak firmly to get my point across.

I'm also not saying Rich doesn't read TVTropes, or reference it in the comic, I just think it's a silly assumption to make. It might be true, it might not.

EDIT: also your banner image is too wide, although not by a terribly huge margin. It just makes the page look off.

Really? I'll fix that then, thanks.

[Harr]

There is really no evidence in the comic pointing to TVTropes. Every example given here as being a "clue" pointing to that website was popular long before TVTropes itself was popular. Yes, even lampshade hanging. Yes, there have been several different versions of that phrase (lampshade, lantern, clock etc.), but what people are skipping over is that they had already begun to be united under "lampshade" before TVTropes named their page that. They didn't give it a name; they simply took the one that was already the most widely-used (as is the entire point of TVTropes).

Besides, even if the Giant learned about the use of that phrase in filmmaking from TVTropes... even if he had never heard it before encountering it over there... it's still a reference to the use of that phrase in filmmaking, not a reference to TVTropes.

Saying that the comic is referencing TVTropes when it's talking about Cerebus or lampshading is like saying that when I write "Veni, vidi, vici" I'm referencing my third-grade history class instead of Julius Caesar.

Picture it now... I'm writing a webcomic and one of the characters quips "Veni vidi vici". Readers reply "Haha, I get it, Ms. Sofia, third grade history class, Beaumont High, Fort Lauderdale, right? Nice reference, she was great!" or for a less ridiculous example, let's say the reply was "Oh, I get it, that war stuff, like in history class! History class was great."

Sure, someone who loves history class and spends a good amount of time in it might be thrilled that someone is referencing their beloved hobby... but while I might have learned about Julius Caesar FROM history class, and I know every single person reading my comic HAS been in a history class at some point, I was nowhere near wanting to reference the actual class.

See? If I wanted to make a reference to history class, then I would make a reference to history class. Like the Wikipedia reference in Sod; the Giant wanted to reference Wikipedia, so he referenced Wikipedia. There's no need to be coy or sly or all wink-wink "here's a clue to point you in the right direction" about it; you want to reference something, you reference it.

Btw, how many pop culture facts do you think the Giant has looked up, looked into, or just confirmed in Wikipedia all through the comic? Several perhaps? Do you therefore consider these pop culture bits being in the comic to be nods to the Wikipedia fans out there? There's a good chance he read about them there after all! Or maybe the Giant is a fan of E! Entertainment Television? But they're not; Wikipedia and E! are tools through which you find other actual sources of knowledge you can use. Same with TVTropes.

[Drolyt]

There is really no evidence in the comic pointing to TVTropes. Every example given here as being a "clue" pointing to that website was popular long before TVTropes itself was popular. Yes, even lampshade hanging. Yes, there have been several different versions of that phrase (lampshade, lantern, clock etc.), but what people are skipping over is that they had already begun to be united under "lampshade" before TVTropes named their page that. They didn't give it a name; they simply took the one that was already the most widely-used (as is the entire point of TVTropes).

Besides, even if the Giant learned about the use of that phrase in filmmaking from TVTropes... even if he had never heard it before encountering it over there... it's still a reference to the use of that phrase in filmmaking, not a reference to TVTropes.

Saying that the comic is referencing TVTropes when it's talking about Cerebus or lampshading is like saying that when I write "Veni, vidi, vici" I'm referencing my third-grade history class instead of Julius Caesar.

Picture it now... I'm writing a webcomic and one of the characters quips "Veni vidi vici". Readers reply "Haha, I get it, Ms. Sofia, third grade history class, Beaumont High, Fort Lauderdale, right? Nice reference, she was great!" or for a less ridiculous example, let's say the reply was "Oh, I get it, that war stuff, like in history class! History class was great."

Sure, someone who loves history class and spends a good amount of time in it might be thrilled that someone is referencing their beloved hobby... but while I might have learned about Julius Caesar FROM history class, and I know every single person reading my comic HAS been in a history class at some point, I was nowhere near wanting to reference the actual class.

See? If I wanted to make a reference to history class, then I would make a reference to history class. Like the Wikipedia reference in Sod; the Giant wanted to reference Wikipedia, so he referenced Wikipedia. There's no need to be coy or sly or all wink-wink "here's a clue to point you in the right direction" about it; you want to reference something, you reference it.

Btw, how many pop culture facts do you think the Giant has looked up, looked into, or just confirmed in Wikipedia all through the comic? Several perhaps? Do you therefore consider these pop culture bits being in the comic to be nods to the Wikipedia fans out there? There's a good chance he read about them there after all! Or maybe the Giant is a fan of E! Entertainment Television? But they're not; Wikipedia and E! are tools through which you find other actual sources of knowledge you can use. Same with TVTropes.

This guy has a good point, well sorta. Thing is while some of the posters have made the claims he's arguing against the OP said nothing of the sort. They just gave their opinion that The Giant reads TvTropes. The OP is probably a TvTropes regular that wanted to know if their theory is true because, I don't know, having similar interests gives people a feeling of kinship. They probably respect The Giant and would be thrilled to learn that The Giant happens to have a similar interest to their own.

[Nimrod's Son]

But one of these things is not like the others: Chekhov's Gun and MacGuffins were known as such for decades before TVTropes came along!
MOST things on TVTropes existed long before the website came along. That was one of the points I was making.

Another was that in the few cases where TVTropes has itself coined a phrase that has stuck, I can usually still tell what it's about without being a reader of the site. I don't recall where I first heard the term "Xanatos Gambit" (on these forums, most likely) but I knew instantly what it meant without the aid of a wiki, because I've seen Gargoyles.

[Petrocorus]

Another was that in the few cases where TVTropes has itself coined a phrase that has stuck, I can usually still tell what it's about without being a reader of the site. I don't recall where I first heard the term "Xanatos Gambit" (on these forums, most likely) but I knew instantly what it meant without the aid of a wiki, because I've seen Gargoyles.


I wonder if this name of Xanatos Gambit has been chosen on TvTropes or the trope was already callled like this before.

I do know the trope itself is probably Older than Feudalism.

[Nimrod's Son]

They probably respect The Giant and would be thrilled to learn that The Giant happens to have a similar interest to their own.
Isn't D&D enough, then? That line of thinking can get a little weird...

Hey kids! Do YOU use the same deodorant as The Giant?

[Drolyt]

I wonder if this name of Xanatos Gambit has been chosen on TvTropes or the trope was already callled like this before.

I do know the trope itself is probably Older than Feudalism.

Devising a plan where you benefit even if the plan fails? I'm fairly certain that's older than media. The very first people with any intelligence must have been doing that even before the first caveman started painting on cave walls. Such plans were probably in existence before the invention of language.

[Petrocorus]

Devising a plan where you benefit even if the plan fails? I'm fairly certain that's older than media. The very first people with any intelligence must have been doing that even before the first caveman started painting on cave walls. Such plans were probably in existence before the invention of language.

I do know this, as i mentioned.
My question is: does the practice to call this kind of plan in fiction "Xanatos Gambit" comes from TvTropes or had already been used before.
Between the first season of Gargoyles in 94 and the beginning of TvTrope in 2003, how was this kind of plan called?

[Drolyt]

I do know this, as i mentioned.
My question is: does the practice to call this kind of plan in fiction "Xanatos Gambit" comes from TvTropes or had already been used before.
Between the first season of Gargoyles in 94 and the beginning of TvTrope in 2003, how was this kind of plan called?

I have no idea. TvTropes doesn't really enlighten, all it mentions is that it was named after David Xanatos from Gargoyles (a pretty good cartoon I haven't seen in a long time). Google returns 33,000 results for the term, compared to 30,400 for lampshade hanging or 136,000 for hang a lampshade (although these results seem to be mostly about hanging actual lampshades rather than a figure of speech) and a mere 7,990 for Cerebus Syndrome. I'm going to hazard a guess that TvTropes did not invent the term.

[Nimrod's Son]

Probably by a whole variety of names, even if it's just something as mundane as a "win/win situation". I don't really understand this apparent need to give storytelling techniques individual buzzword names. Being able to convey an idea is far more important than knowing the "proper" name for it.

[Drolyt]

Isn't D&D enough, then? That line of thinking can get a little weird...

Hey kids! Do YOU use the same deodorant as The Giant?

... You do realize there are millions of people who wear a certain brand of shoes because their favorite sports star does, or uses a particular shampoo because their favorite actress does, or wears a particular piece of clothing because some hot model does? Yes it can seem kinda creepy and weird, and The Giant isn't really that famous, but seriously I wasn't talking about anything that extreme. People like to know that other people are into their hobbies. It's nice to know that you're not the only one who managed to waste hours of your life editing TvTropes. For a lot of people, for whatever reason, it's even better to know that someone famous and powerful or someone you look up to shares their interest. That's a bit different from wanting to know what deodorant The Giant happens to use.

[Nimrod's Son]

Man, if it turns out Rich is perfectly well enough to use a computer but he's spending his time reading TVTropes instead of making OotS, there's surely gonna be a backlash... :smallamused:

[Drolyt]

Man, if it turns out Rich is perfectly well enough to use a computer but he's spending his time reading TVTropes instead of making OotS, there's surely gonna be a backlash... :smallamused:

Lol. Seriously though, making those comics isn't as easy as it looks. I have no idea what's up with The Giant beyond the rumors that he's ill, but browsing websites is much easier than editing full color comics. He could very well have one of those setups where the computer plugs into his Tv and he has like a remote thingiy to navigate the web more easily from the comfort of his couch.

[Kurald Galain]

My question is: does the practice to call this kind of plan in fiction "Xanatos Gambit" comes from TvTropes or had already been used before.

I believe it does. TVTropes is a huge meme factory.

[Haven]

I think Xanatos Gambit is one of a very few original phrases from TV Tropes. Another part of why the idea that the Giant reads TV Tropes is so unconvincing: everything he's referenced is a reference to something else that's well known. If he was going to reference TV Tropes he would say "Crowning Moment of Awesome" or "What Do You Mean It's Not Symbolic".

[Drolyt]

I think Xanatos Gambit is one of a very few original phrases from TV Tropes. Another part of why the idea that the Giant reads TV Tropes is so unconvincing: everything he's referenced is a reference to something else that's well known. If he was going to reference TV Tropes he would say "Crowning Moment of Awesome" or "What Do You Mean It's Not Symbolic".
Here is the OP:

Does anyone know if he does? Because it seems he's taken every fantasy "trope" and either parodied it or "lampshaded" it. OOTS also seems to be the Wiki's favourite thing since Mystery Science Theatre.
The question is whether he reads TvTropes. He's obviously never referenced TvTropes directly. I'm under the impression The Giant is not fond of those sorts of references, so the fact that he does not make them means nothing.

[Haven]

Yes, I read the OP. :smallannoyed: But I also read the posts in between this and it, and it's clear there are many people to whom it is not obvious; it is to them I respond.

[hamishspence]

If he was going to reference TV Tropes he would say "Crowning Moment of Awesome" or "What Do You Mean It's Not Symbolic".

Maybe some of the strip titles would fit?

[Nimrod's Son]

Maybe some of the strip titles would fit?
If they do, then none of the "Tropers" here have put any forward. The closest I've seen is "Because Good Is Dumb", which as mentioned earlier is a direct quote from Spaceballs.

What wasn't mentioned earlier was the word "Because" in that quote, which I don't recall seeing whenever someone here mentioned it in relation to TVTropes. I may be wrong on that point, but if TVTropes called it "Good Is Dumb" and not "Because Good Is Dumb" then that's the final nail in the coffin of the argument that the title in question is a reference to anything other than Spaceballs.

[Drolyt]

If they do, then none of the "Tropers" here have put any forward. The closest I've seen is "Because Good Is Dumb", which as mentioned earlier is a direct quote from Spaceballs.

What wasn't mentioned earlier was the word "Because" in that quote, which I don't recall seeing whenever someone here mentioned it in relation to TVTropes. I may be wrong on that point, but if TVTropes called it "Good Is Dumb" and not "Because Good Is Dumb" then that's the final nail in the coffin of the argument that the title in question is a reference to anything other than Spaceballs.

I have to agree that none of the titles appear to be from TvTropes, although I didn't check all 704.

[Zea mays]

A wizard did it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0643.html) may be a reference to the trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt). Or to Xena's guest appearance on The Simpsons (hey, I remembered it, why shouldn't Rich?)
The most disturbing thing about it: If it is a reference to TVTropes, it's a trope-pun.

Of course the strip in question is about so much more than just that.

[Drolyt]

A wizard did it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0643.html) may be a reference to the trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt). Or to Xena's guest appearance on The Simpsons (hey, I remembered it, why shouldn't Rich?)
The most disturbing thing about it: If it is a reference to TVTropes, it's a trope-pun.

Of course the strip in question is about so much more than just that.

That's a common one though, it could be a reference to the Simpson's episode, but it could also be a reference to Sarda from 8-Bit Theatre, another popular Webcomic. I'm still leaning towards "he must have visited TvTropes at least once or twice", but I claim no knowledge.

[Optimystik]

That's a common one though, it could be a reference to the Simpson's episode, but it could also be a reference to Sarda from 8-Bit Theatre, another popular Webcomic. I'm still leaning towards "he must have visited TvTropes at least once or twice", but I claim no knowledge.

IIRC, Brian lifted that joke from the Simpsons' episode in question. To quote South Park, "Simpsons Did It."

[The Giant]

I don't normally like to read or respond to threads, but this one is something that I can definitively answer in one post, so why not?

Yes, I am aware TV Tropes exists as a website.

No, I do not read it regularly. Most of the few times that I have ever visited the site came as a result of someone linking a trope that they feel I have used in the comic, and I followed the link so that I may understand what their criticism/point is.

No, I have never decided to do something in the comic because it was listed on TV Tropes. I don't use it as a checklist for ideas, as has been claimed, and I have never intentionally referenced it in any way.

As far as some of the specific points being argued in this thread:

1.) I've taken film and literature classes; I knew what a trope was before 2003. I acknowledge that the word has become much more commonplace since then, possibly as a result of the site, and that I may have felt more comfortable having Elan use the word in relation to story structure as a result of seeing it bandied about the internet.

2.) The term "Cerebrus Syndrome" was coined by Eric Burns of Websnark, who has published several reviews of OOTS strips over the years and of whose blog I was an avid reader in the days before it dried up and blew away. You will note that I contributed art to the man's wedding proposal several years ago. If TV Tropes is using that phrase, it's because Eric invented it.

3.) "Lampshade hanging" is one of several terms that mean the same thing; the Turkey City Lexicon (which I have read) uses the term "Signals from Fred". I could have had the hobgoblin lean in with a telephone and say that Fred was on the line, which was my first instinct, but if I had, I don't think anyone would have understood it. At any rate, I'm pretty sure I heard the term elsewhere, but I can acknowledge that I may have read it in the work of someone who was, themselves, referencing TV Tropes (such as another webcomic artist). So I can give you that this one may be indirectly caused by the site.

4.) I love the Gargoyles cartoon, but to my knowledge I've never made any reference to Xanatos.

5.) "Good is Dumb" is from Spaceballs. Geez.

[Haven]

Huh. Glad to have that officially sorted. I'm a little more surprised than I probably should be that the Giant knows this site exists. Happy, though.

Since he apparently read this whole thread, maybe I should have taken the time to shamelessly self-promote this declaration of the troper hivemind (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Memes/TVTropesWiki#haven). Ah, well.

[SPoD]

I don't think I have ever been happier to see the Giant's answer on a topic.

[Bavarian itP]

Or to Xena's guest appearance on The Simpsons (hey, I remembered it, why shouldn't Rich?)


That wasn't Xena, that was Lucy Lawless.

[SPoD]

That's a common one though, it could be a reference to the Simpson's episode, but it could also be a reference to Sarda from 8-Bit Theatre, another popular Webcomic.

We know for a fact that Rich read 8-Bit Theater, because Rich did a guest comic for 8BT once.

[Kish]

I don't think I have ever been happier to see the Giant's answer on a topic.
I'm glad he posted, too.

[Nimrod's Son]

I have a feeling I'll be quoting it at some point in the not-so-distant future. :smallamused:

[Asta Kask]

The OP's question has been answered. Can we send this thread back to the oblivion where it deserves to be?

[Drolyt]

Well, I guess we have an answer. He knows of TvTropes, but does not read it regularly and does not take ideas from it, which was pretty much what I thought. I guess this thread is over.

[factotum]

Even with Word of God giving the answer, I doubt this question is dead in the water...somebody will come up with it again.

[Mystic Muse]

Even with Word of God giving the answer, I doubt this question is dead in the water...somebody will come up with it again.

which is why we'll use this thread to quote his answer. Sound good?

but yeah, with word of God this thread is over.

[Morty]

I'm glad to see Giant's answer to the question as well.

[Asta Kask]

And now it's turning into a "Me-Too" thread...

Oh Mods of our fathers - close this thread. We beseech ye!

[Drolyt]

And now it's turning into a "Me-Too" thread...

Oh Mods of our fathers - close this thread. We beseech ye!

I agree with this guy. I'm glad we got an answer, but do we really need to hear everyone gloat about how they were right? The thread no longer serves a purpose.

[Asta Kask]

Is there a Summon Roland spell? And what level is it?

[Drolyt]

Is there a Summon Roland spell? And what level is it?

0th level, and it's available in these little charms if you aren't a spellcaster. Would be higher level, but even newbies have to have access for the good of the forum.

[Optimystik]

If you guys stopped bumping it, there'd be no need for him.

Yes, I'm aware of the irony.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: The Giant's answered and the masses have proceeded to spam up the thread, so thread locked, I suppose.