TV Tropes: Limiting or Inclusionary?

[Gaelbert]

Considering that Blink was where the term came from, and it only really got mentioned again in a Children in Need special, I don't think a trope is at all appropriate. And if it has become a trope, it now sucks by definition. Because anything popular enough as a device to become a trope is by definition a cliche.

The Christmas Special was a bit meh. Heavy on the schmaltz, heavy handed time travel as an alternative to plot, lots of re treading ground that The Curse Of Fatal death already walked. Hopefully the new season will be better, but I'm wondering if Moffat can handle the sheer quantity of stuff he has on his plate these days.


Tropes inherently make things worse. If it's a trope, it has been reduced to something that no longer has meaning. For example, what exactly does the following phrase say to you:

"Jenkins... chap with wings, there. Five rounds rapid."

If it suggests a trope, you're missing the point. If it suggests that the conventional military is trying to deal with something it is not equipped to, in both physical and psychological terms, you're getting there.

The problem with tropes, and especially with TV Tropes is, everything becomes smaller when it's a trope. It goes from "Wow, that was awesome!" to "Oh it's just a..."

And that makes sadface sad.


This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdVivT0ShC4) is my earliest memory. And quite frankly, using TV Tropes, especially a page that doesn't actually have anything to do with why I dislike TV Tropes so intensely, to try and rebutt my comment about the reductionist quality that TV Tropes brings to everything it touches is putting the cart before the horse.


You're really missing the point if you think that anything that's a trope is bad. You will have tropes in any story. You can't avoid them. It's quite possibly literally impossible.
When you call something a trope, you're not actually changing it. You're putting a label on it, a label that helps you build context from other works.


When you put it on TV Tropes, you reduce it, taking away all meaning. It goes from being a device, a tool to tell a story, to being a trope. A buzz word. That's all TV Tropes gives you, buzz words removed from all context and the with lists of places that examples of that buzz word might be found.

And that's why TV Tropes is nothing but reductions. It takes things and makes them smaller so they fit on lists.


Tropes are only buzzwords if you use them like a buzzword. Which some people do, yes, and that's bad. But most people use them to describe an element of a story, which is more what they're meant for. Instead of saying, for example, "Character X used to be a bad guy. Then he was sent to spy on the good guys by pretending to be a good guy, but he ended up really liking the good guys and in the end he turned good for real", you say "Character X Became the Mask. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BecomingTheMask) Simple. Now anyone who doesn't know what it means can look at the link, or if they want more specifics they could ask. It doesn't cheapen the story in any way, it just acknowledges the fact that many story share common elements, and gives these elements a name so they can be discussed more easily.

Anyway, I can understand if you don't like TV Tropes, since a lot of people don't, but I really fail to see how something being added to TV Tropes actively makes the original worse.


You say that like it's a bad thing. Philosophies and concepts aren't inherently bad, and even then aren't wholly abhorrent.


Going to go ahead and make a new thread; I'd like to discuss this with you, Dice!

Let's stop polluting the Dr. Who thread and start one here.

[Dvandemon]

Actually, they are meant in a very different way from the way TV Tropes uses them. A trope is actually a figure of speech, such as a metaphor, hyperbole or irony. What it is not is some pithy title given to story or plot elements that are barely connected other than by this tenuous name.

It doesn't make the original worse, it makes all the things associated with that particular trope that much smaller and less dramatic. TV Tropes takes iconic moments and turns them into buzzwords.

I'm strarting to thinks he's missing the point. Tropes are connected because they are the same plot/story element. All things associated with the trope don't become smaller and less dramatic, that is the Darth way; Tropes are not buzzwords, at least not entirely, That Other Wiki defines:
Labelling a term a "buzzword" pejoratively implies that it is now used pretentiously and inappropriately by individuals with little understanding of its actual meaning who are most interested in impressing others by making their discourse sound more esoteric, obscure, and technical than it otherwise would be.. It can easily be used in such a manner but, for the savvy it can also recall the meaning behind that word, and the personal examples that follow. Personally, reading tropes made the iconic more personal for me, easier to appreciate, analyze and remember. YMMV

[Frozen_Feet]

It is both. TV Tropes, as one of its specific, stated goals, tries to be as inclusive as possible.

However, in practice, many tropes fall apart. Either they're broken down to too small parts that they become uselessly generic, or they mutate through misuse until they don't describe a real trope (or describe one poorly), or become just buzzwords (like Big Dice accuses).

Considering how darn broad both the concept of a trope and TV Tropes as a digital database are, you really should've seen this one coming.

To give an example: Crowning Moment of Awesome, which was meant to be the single, definitive peak of a series suffered such extensive over- and misuse that the whole trope had to be detonated. Now the content has become just big, subjective lists of "awesome" moments, most of which aren't awesome. Other examples of similar deteroriation are Nightmare Fuel, Fetish Fuel, Moments of Heartwarming and so on. They're so needlessly broad as to be almost useless.

Overall, TV Tropes is a good place to scavenge for new entertainment or ideas for stories. The actual trope dichtomies are so fuzzy though that you can't take great many of them seriously. The site, as a whole, is good at dissecting various works of fiction and examining their content. Singular tropes are pretty hit and miss, and are often mislabeled or misused.

[Lord Raziere]

When you put it on TV Tropes, you reduce it, taking away all meaning. It goes from being a device, a tool to tell a story, to being a trope. A buzz word. That's all TV Tropes gives you, buzz words removed from all context and the with lists of places that examples of that buzz word might be found.

And that's why TV Tropes is nothing but reductions. It takes things and makes them smaller so they fit on lists.

dude, just because Tvtropes applies a scientific way of looking at this, doesn't mean it ain't beautiful, ask any scientist whether he considers a rainbow less beautiful just because he knows how it is formed and they will say "No, I still appreciate its beauty, I just now know why it is beautiful, that and I can use this knowledge to make more beauty like it."

so just because tvtropes exist, doesn't make anything less beautiful just because we know the mechanics underneath the story- it just means we can figure out how the mechanics were done and used then figure out a way to use those mechanics to make pieces of art just as good or even better.

[John Cribati]

It goes from being a device, a tool to tell a story, to being a trope.

But... A Trope is a device that is used to tell a story. So you're turning it... into itself?

[BladeofOblivion]

But... A Trope is a device that is used to tell a story. So you're turning it... into itself?

There's a trope for that. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShapedLikeItself) Sort of.

[DeadManSleeping]

Defining and analyzing things does not reduce one's appreciation of them, and can, in fact, lead to far greater appreciation of them. (http://www.xkcd.com/877/)

A well-executed device is even more enjoyable when you can really get into what was well executed and how.

[Frozen_Feet]

dude, just because Tvtropes applies a scientific way of looking at this...
Hahaha! Thanks for that joke.

TV Tropes is a deconstructive site, yes, in the sense that it dissects works of fiction into their component pieces. But while some of its upkeepers might, the site itself doesn't adhere to principles of literary analysis or any form of scientific principle very strongly.

Mostly, it's just people gushing about shows they might like. Rest of the time, it's people whining about shows they don't like.

What TV Tropes tries to do is the exact same thing as other literal analysis. Tropes themselves are pretty ubiquitous; heck, there are genres of work that are based on recognizing and subverting tropes, such as parody.

But I can still see why someone would think of TV Tropes as an anti-intellectual site. It's not very well organized or edited source. It has butloads of redundancy and errors, and half the time its own users don't really know how things should work. Plus, you don't need to have ever heard of TV Tropes to know or understand tropes or literal analysis. I knew loads and loads of tropes before ever visiting the site, and I doubt I would've found it that funny if I hadn't.

[Dvandemon]

@FrozenFeet: The main problem with tvtropes is quality control. Any problems it has are the same with wikipedia.
Defining and analyzing things does not reduce one's appreciation of them, and can, in fact, lead to far greater appreciation of them. (http://www.xkcd.com/877/)

A well-executed device is even more enjoyable when you can really get into what was well executed and how.

There's a trope for that; Measuring the Marigolds.

[GloatingSwine]

dude, just because Tvtropes applies a scientific way of looking at this

Errr.... no it doesnt?

TVTropes is an occasionally amusing collection of trivia about fiction, it is not a serious or useful resource for actually classifying "tropes" in fiction, no matter how much the Serious Business crew want to treat it as such.

The concept behind it is, well, the root of literary criticism. Looking at patterns of narrative, presentation, semiotics, etc. in one piece of literature in comparison to the rest of the body of related literature.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

In my opinion, and YMMV, TV Tropes is bad when you take it too seriously. It isn't professional or academic literary criticism. It's like a bunch of fellows just hanging out, bouncing thoughts about story and writing off the walls at each other, except that the whole internet is doing it.

Great place to learn how to paint in new ways of storytelling, and fun with that attitude.

[GloatingSwine]

But... A Trope is a device that is used to tell a story. So you're turning it... into itself?

A "trope" is a repeating pattern in a body of literature. A device which is used to tell a story but which is entirely novel and unique to one work is not a trope.

It's the same root as tropism in biology, which refers to unconscious movement in plants in response to some kind of stimulus. It's possibly quite a well chosen term, because most tropes have become so without particular intent. They're just elements of literature (narrative, presentational, whatever) which keep appearing because they work. And this does not require cynical manipulation on the part of the writer either, the star-cross'd lovers only confessing at the moment of death probably had the same effect on the writer the first time they thought of it as it did on the audience when they saw it, and that's why it's in the play/film/novel/whatever.

[Morgan Wick]

You're sick of all of those Trope Overdosed stories. It's getting on your nerves. Why doesn't anybody do anything original? You know! You're going to write one yourself! So now you compose a list of tropes, and cross out what you can't have in your story. Work something out afterwards.
You can't have a hero or a villain. That's okay, there have been works that did that.
No genre. You always hated genre fiction anyway, so that won't be a problem. Can't be Genre Busting either, though.
You can't like anything you write about. That's okay, you will write about what you hate— NO WAIT! YOU CAN'T DO THAT EITHER!.
You will not go overboard with your descriptions, but you can't limit those descriptions either.
You will not write any short story, novel, comic book, graphic novel, web comic, TV show, miniseries, movie, New Media, wrestling circut, anything animated, Web Original, Fan Fic, toy, video game, radio sequence, or play. But no problem, you had an idea for an entirely new platform for telling stories anyway, right?
You will not have a narrative in your story. That means no plot, no dialogue, no characters, . Your story will be about nothingness. Just a page or two describing the non-existent scenery that is utropeia. Or maybe just describing nothingness
You cannot avert any tropes, but you can't use Averted Trope either. Sound like some sort of Logic Bomb? Well, you have to avert that now, too. As well as averting Beyond The Impossible.
Hang on a second! The Tropeless Tale is now a trope...

As proven by points 2, 6, 7, and 8, it's impossible to write a story without tropes. The trick in intelligent writing is to take old tropes and use them in a new way. Watchmen is considered a masterpiece, even though nothing in it was new. It just used the old in a fascinating way. William Shakespeare lifted all of his plots from other works. If you look closely, no trope can't be used well, not even Bad Writing.


Tropes are just tools. Writers understand tropes and use them to control audience expectations either by using them straight or by subverting them, to convey things to the audience quickly without saying them.

Human beings are natural pattern seekers and story tellers. We use stories to convey truths, examine ideas, speculate on the future and discuss consequences. To do this, we must have a basis for our discussion, a new language to show us what we are looking at today. So our storytellers use tropes to let us know what things about reality we should put aside and what parts of fiction we should take up.

When editing the wiki, then, remember these two mantras:

Tropes Are Not Bad

There is one thing that you must keep in mind to retain your sanity here, and that is that including a trope in a particular work does not make it "ruined." Not even those tropes.

If your favorite shows have long lists of tropes associated with them, well, so do everybody's. A show featuring an Action Girl or showing a character kicking the dog is not a bad thing; the former is merely a reasonable type of character (badass character who is female) and the latter is a character action that happens plenty in Real Life.

That said, some trope entries are just highlights of common mistakes, and generally are bad. For instance, a modern-day show where all the cops have Family Friendly laser guns is probably just necessary lameness to appease censors (unless superhero-tech from superhuman geniuses is a common part of the universe), and a writer that includes Instant Death Bullets probably just screwed up.

Consider the following points before you label simply including a common story element or character type as a sign of creative failure:

There is nothing new under the sun. Including that very statement. And the book from which it comes. Completely ignoring the possibility that one's favorite show just might not be hewn from the very essence of the universe by Thor himself and placed in the periodic table under Or for "Originalium" doesn't change the fact that it wasn't. And acknowledging that it isn't should not lessen its appeal, either.

Every story is influenced by what came before it — and storytellers (e.g., writers, directors, actors) are bound to show that influence, intentionally or not, in the process of telling. Just because something's been used before doesn't mean it's a cliché, and stories often gain something by having ties to other works. That said, there certainly is such thing as too derivative, but there's a difference between playing a trope straight and utter Cliché Storm (and even those aren't necessarily bad).

It's impossible to write something completely and utterly without tropes, anyway, so stop trying.

Almost every trope has a silver lining. The much-reviled All Just a Dream was, let's not forget, used in one of the most highly regarded series finales in the history of television, as well as one of the best twist endings in any movie. While Darker and Edgier revisionism isn't always a good thing, it's been used in the biggest blockbuster of 2008. Even if a trope didn't have a silver lining, every trope could still be used honorably by way of subversion, parody, or appropriately employed and treated in-universe examples. Remember, while this site is fairly snarky, most of the snark is directed towards shows that don't use tropes well.

Fiction isn't necessarily supposed to be realistic. When your reader wants to escape from the tired drudgery of reality, you shouldn't be trying to indexically recreate it. Much fiction seeks to show not what is, but what could be, or what should be. A trope being unrealistic isn't necessarily a flaw, and is often covered by Rule Of Cool, Rule of Funny, or Rule Of Scary. Indeed, a trope, however unrealistic, can be a convenient shorthand when played straight; setting up aversions or subversions for it can be more wordy than is needed to get on with story.

And yes, I do recognize the irony of simply quoting TV Tropes liberally and only including this one sentence of my own so the post will go through.

[Fiery Diamond]

I don't know whether Big Dice would agree with this or not, but I want to respond to Helanna's quoted post:


Instead of saying, for example, "Character X used to be a bad guy. Then he was sent to spy on the good guys by pretending to be a good guy, but he ended up really liking the good guys and in the end he turned good for real", you say "Character X Became the Mask. Simple. Now anyone who doesn't know what it means can look at the link, or if they want more specifics they could ask. It doesn't cheapen the story in any way, it just acknowledges the fact that many story share common elements, and gives these elements a name so they can be discussed more easily.


I respectfully disagree. While it doesn't cheapen the story you're referring to in this example (the story in which Character X is a character), I certainly think that it cheapens the conversation you're having about the story. Would I rather hear

"Character X used to be a bad guy. Then he was sent to spy on the good guys by pretending to be a good guy, but he ended up really liking the good guys and in the end he turned good for real",

Or would I rather hear

"Character X Became the Mask."

When someone is telling me about the story? 100% emphatically always, the first option.

That said, TVTropes is fun to waste time on. :smalltongue:

[John Cribati]

A device which is used to tell a story but which is entirely novel and unique to one work is not a trope.

I'd agree with you if such a thing existed. Emphasis mine.

[GloatingSwine]

I'd agree with you if such a thing existed. Emphasis mine.

There's a first time for everything.

Admittedly, the first time for a lot of things was probably the Epic of Gilgamesh, but as cultures change and our methods of transmitting narrative change, stories and their presentations change in response.

So yes, those things have existed in the past, and almost certainly will again.

[Frozen_Feet]

@FrozenFeet: The main problem with tvtropes is quality control. Any problems it has are the same with wikipedia.


That's what I said. :smalltongue: Expect it has some more problems that Wikipedia, or heightened amount of some of the problems. For one, lesser formality directly contributes to poorer quality and causes deteroariation of established tropes. This causes the site to be much more scatter-brained, fragmented and lacking of standard than Wikipedia, or indeed many more focused wikis.

On another note, have to agree with Fiery Diamond that trope speech tends to cheapen conversation about works. I'm all for consciseness, but sublety is often lost if using TV Tropes jargon (and woe be your partner if s/he doesn't know the site inside-out), or, equally often, you end up adding extra baggage because you actually chose the wrong trope or because TV Tropes name for it carries some bizarre connotation due to semi-clever naming etc.

[Dvandemon]

I don't know whether Big Dice would agree with this or not, but I want to respond to Helanna's quoted post:



I respectfully disagree. While it doesn't cheapen the story you're referring to in this example (the story in which Character X is a character), I certainly think that it cheapens the conversation you're having about the story. Would I rather hear

"Character X used to be a bad guy. Then he was sent to spy on the good guys by pretending to be a good guy, but he ended up really liking the good guys and in the end he turned good for real",

Or would I rather hear

"Character X Became the Mask."

When someone is telling me about the story? 100% emphatically always, the first option.

That said, TVTropes is fun to waste time on. :smalltongue:

:smallconfused: That's rather pointless, it suggests a level of involvement that both parties aren't likely to have without full knowledge of the story, the trope and the context. Only an idiot would actually try to discuss with tropes like that :smallannoyed: not even tropers do that. Essentially, that's not how you do (tv)tropes

[warty goblin]

:smallconfused: That's rather pointless, it suggests a level of involvement that both parties aren't likely to have without full knowledge of the story, the trope and the context. Only an idiot would actually try to discuss with tropes like that :smallannoyed: not even tropers do that. Essentially, that's not how you do (tv)tropes

If tvtropes doesn't create a usable descriptive vocabulary, what precisely is the point? Grouping information into categories that do not facilitate any new discussion, analysis or other inquiry into their membership strikes me as being nothing more than busywork.

[0Megabyte]

Honestly, my main problem with tvtropes is that I have heard people use the jargon on other forums, and it is unbelievably irritating.

The lack of quality control, large amount of poorly written schlock, obvious fanboyism from many of the more recent additions and whatnot make it impossible to utilize tvtropes as any kind of scholarly source. (I know this in no small part because my classes actually consist of finding those scholarly sources dealing with films and television, and using them.)

It's an entertaining site, and one which has been quite useful for discovering new stories that might strike my fancy, or reading amusing things about stories. And it's even somewhat useful, or at least was back in 2007, for gaining a new way of thinking about fiction. Being able to go "yeah, I know that trope, I've seen it all the time!" and being more aware of it, and its permutations, isn't a bad thing. Most of all, at its best tvtropes is amusing, and I've found a number of things I like because of it.

But man. I have met people on other forums who then use those trope titles as buzzwords, in exactly the sort of reductive and irritating manner that the Big Dice talked about. People who use trope titles instead of original thought, and bandy them around as though they mean something profound, all to audiences who view their terms with, at best, bored indifference. (This includes me, and I actually know what the people in my example are talking about!) It soured me, rightfully so, on any use of the terms in any sort of formal setting. If you must describe a trope, I've found it more fruitful to talk about the concept itself, not using some bandied phrase.

Also, the troper tales section is a weird self-aggrandizing circle-jerk, crowning moment of awesome, besides being horrifying to hear someone say in any context (and smacks of fanboyism whenever I've heard it outside of tvtropes) is trapped in a quagmire of the subjective fanboying opinions of a thousand tropers, each more easily impressed than the next. The same is true for the entire set of sister concepts, and really the whole thing should have been culled from the early days. Worse, you can see on many pages actual arguments being acted out in the middle of examples. Then there's the bane of "X. Just X" style things, which used to pop up like weeds and were uniformly unhelpful to the point of antagonism. And worst of all? Whenever I happen to know something in detail about a subject the tropers talk about, some of the things on the main pages on those subjects are invariably wrong.

All in all, it's an amusing thing that cannot be taken any more seriously than a conversation between friends, I never use the terminology in real life, and while it's an interesting goal which has indeed met with some success, it's too mired in fanboyism and lack of rigor to be anything more than a glorified story recommendation site, at odds with its original goal.

So, eh. I like it for what I use it for, anyway.

[Gaius Marius]

While my opinion don't rate as highly on the scale of Entertainment Philosopher such as yourselves, I want to share that I love going to TvTropes after watching a film or reading a book for the first time.

It gives some sort of articulated and alphabethised collective observations of the work I consumed, giving me deeper insight from peoples who saw more, know more, or simply observed differently than I. I do not accep everything up to face value, as I know there are many subjective tropes.

but I believe Tvtropes helps a lot the Art and discussion of It in general, for it creates a nomenclature for classic storytelling purposes in order to discuss it. It probably does more to contribute to the intellectual debate than any empty scientific analysis, for with its wide audience reach, it facilitates the processing of concepts in common dialogue on the Internet, and maybe even in Real life.

Aristotle gave us the basics for the Scientific methods, even if he wasn't perfect at it. Maybe Tvtropes is the embryo of a new current in humanity's way of thinking? Or maybe is it the first of many phenomena that will mark the creation of an unified view of the world and media?

Hmmm.. Nah, paranoiac. ;)

[Claudius Maximus]

Yeah, it would be great if everything wrong with TvTropes stopped being a thing. I like the basic concept of the thing.

Anyway I was reading The Cambridge Companion to Homer today and they were using the term MacGuffin, which I thought was a bit weird. Troper talk doesn't sound right even when it's with some of the more well-known names. I don't think you can really get away with naming many tropes other than maybe Deus ex Machina.

[Tavar]

McGuffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) is an actual term, outside of Tvtropes, though. Like Deus ex Machina. There's more of them out there that one might think. One reason I think the hard-line naysayer position is kinda weird.

[Claudius Maximus]

I'm well aware, which is why I included it among "the more well-known names." It's not like I think the site invented the term.

Anyway it still sounded weird in a book of serious literary criticism.

[Tengu_temp]

TV Tropes is a fun website (I think that entertainment is and will always be its primary purpose), but I have a lot of gripes with it, most notably in the examples section. I wrote about it ages ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100041), and my complaints still remain unchanged. Only replace I Am Not Making This Up (which is fortunately gone) with Beyond The Impossible.

[Avilan the Grey]

To answer the subject line: Yes. It is both.

Other than that... It Is Right There In The Manual. Lack of quality control? It is stated on the page that they are not only a "buttload" more informal than Wikipedia, but they have a completely different edit / quality system.

And personally I love it when people use Tropes in other forums.

[T-O-E]

dude, just because Tvtropes applies a scientific way of looking at this, doesn't mean it ain't beautiful, ask any scientist whether he considers a rainbow less beautiful just because he knows how it is formed and they will say "No, I still appreciate its beauty, I just now know why it is beautiful, that and I can use this knowledge to make more beauty like it."

so just because tvtropes exist, doesn't make anything less beautiful just because we know the mechanics underneath the story- it just means we can figure out how the mechanics were done and used then figure out a way to use those mechanics to make pieces of art just as good or even better.

I would say that's a viewpoint. Some people are like you, and others feel they lose a bit of wonder when they know how things actually work, that it's been limited. I'm kind of both and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[Gaius Marius]

McGuffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin) is an actual term, outside of Tvtropes, though. Like Deus ex Machina. There's more of them out there that one might think. One reason I think the hard-line naysayer position is kinda weird.

But just before it uses terms used before it even existed (Checkov's Gun) doesn't mean it didn't helped coin some new terms for storytelling tools. And the more term you can coin terms to express concepts, the better your language is..

[The Big Dice]

But just before it uses terms used before it even existed (Checkov's Gun) doesn't mean it didn't helped coin some new terms for storytelling tools. And the more term you can coin terms to express concepts, the better your language is..
The problem there is, Chekhov's Gun is a term that came from the Russian writer Anton Chekhov himself He said "If in the first act you hang a pistol on the wall, in the following one it should be fired." Hence the term, Chekhov's Gun.

That's not a trope. That's advice on how to use foreshadowing. It's telling prospective writers that they shouldn't put something into a piece of work that isn't going to be used. It is in fact the exact opposite of a red herring. Which is another device, rather than a trope.

Which is to say, coining terms does not mean you are automatically using language in new and creative ways. I'm fairly sure that Chekhov didn't finish the above sentence by saying "And that is Chekhov's Gun. Thank you."

In fact, i'm sure the literary critic who probably spawned the phrase way back in the 1920s or so is spinning in his grave at the way it's been abused on TV Tropes.

[Tengu_temp]

You do realize that reccuring literary devices are tropes too, right?

[The Big Dice]

You do realize that reccuring literary devices are tropes too, right?

Are you sure (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsATrope.htm) about that (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trope.htm)?
You realise that tropes aren't just what you think they are, right? And that there is a right way and a wrong way to use them, and that they are not quite as ubiquitous as TV Tropes makes them out to be?

[Gaius Marius]

That's not a trope. That's advice on how to use foreshadowing. It's telling prospective writers that they shouldn't put something into a piece of work that isn't going to be used. It is in fact the exact opposite of a red herring. Which is another device, rather than a trope.


... that's a trope.

Chekov's gun is a litteraty concept coined a long time ago, in order to avoid the Deus Ex Machina of having a gun coming out of nowhere. It's using foreshadowing in order to achieve reasonable story conclusion.

If the gun is mentionned, but not used, it's a red herring.

If the gun is pulled out of nowhere, hanged to the wall, and then used later on, it's a Vodoo Shark.

If the gun is pulled out of nowhere, it's an Asspull.

All of them are storytelling tools OR storytelling failure. But all of them are tropes. The definition isn't absolute and all-encompassing, and there will always be variation from example to example. Does it mean it's wrong to try to name them, and list them in an entertaining way, trying to make it understand to a wider audience?

[Tengu_temp]

Are you sure (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsATrope.htm) about that (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trope.htm)?
You realise that tropes aren't just what you think they are, right? And that there is a right way and a wrong way to use them, and that they are not quite as ubiquitous as TV Tropes makes them out to be?

You're using the general definition of a trope. However, there is also the literary definition, which is different. To quote wiktionary:

(literature) Something recurring across a genre or type of literature, such as the ‘mad scientist’ of horror or ‘once upon a time’ as introduction to fairytales. Similar to a cliché, but not necessarily pejorative.
So yes, I'm afraid that tropes are what I think they are, and they are as ubiquitous as TV Tropes makes them out to be.

[Leliel]

Are you sure (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsATrope.htm) about that (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trope.htm)?
You realise that tropes aren't just what you think they are, right? And that there is a right way and a wrong way to use them, and that they are not quite as ubiquitous as TV Tropes makes them out to be?

...Okay, now you're arguing semantics is the reason TV Tropes is bad.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but just because "the all-important dictionary" says it doesn't mean everyone uses it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PersonalDictionary) (and yes, I know that example is bad, it's just the closest thing I can think of).

And yes, tropes are that ubiquitous. "All the world's a stage", after all, and by their definition of tropes (ie, a commonly-seen literary device), they have a tendency to pop up. You shouldn't use them to guide your life, but you can see them in retrospect.

[Mewtarthio]

If the gun is pulled out of nowhere, hanged to the wall, and then used later on, it's a Vodoo Shark.

I thought the Voodoo Shark is when the gun was pulled out of nowhere, the audience wonders where it came from, and the playwright creates a sequel explaining that the shooter was a sorcerer who can summon guns, despite the original play being a realistic historical drama.

See, this is the problem with TV Tropes. Confusing terminology. The term "Voodoo Shark" alone implies "shark connected to loa in some way." The only way you can intuit the definition is by knowing about the Jaws franchise (not unreasonable) and further knowing that an obscure novelization of one of the sequels claimed that the family kept getting attacked by sharks as part of a voodoo curse (decidedly less reasonable).

[Leliel]

I thought the Voodoo Shark is when the gun was pulled out of nowhere, the audience wonders where it came from, and the playwright creates a sequel explaining that the shooter was a sorcerer who can summon guns, despite the original play being a realistic historical drama.

See, this is the problem with TV Tropes. Confusing terminology. The term "Voodoo Shark" alone implies "shark connected to loa in some way." The only way you can intuit the definition is by knowing about the Jaws franchise (not unreasonable) and further knowing that an obscure novelization of one of the sequels claimed that the family kept getting attacked by sharks as part of a voodoo curse (decidedly less reasonable).

This criticism, I agree with.

A lot of people don't read the whole entry, or only "selectively" read it to support their point (there's another trope for this, but it's one of the "almost universally bad ones" when it applies to factual information) to support their point.

We've had the problem with all those whiners about how the allosaurus in "Unexpected" was a deus ex machina, when in fact a specific strip was devoted to showing that the arena already had it and there was a very plausible explanation for it's release.

[Gaius Marius]

See, this is the problem with TV Tropes. Confusing terminology. The term "Voodoo Shark" alone implies "shark connected to loa in some way." The only way you can intuit the definition is by knowing about the Jaws franchise (not unreasonable) and further knowing that an obscure novelization of one of the sequels claimed that the family kept getting attacked by sharks as part of a voodoo curse (decidedly less reasonable).

Or if you read the definition on TV Tropes.

So having a group of litteracy debaters (or SFDebris) all having read this definition makes it easier to reference, or at least invoke. You don't need to be dead-on, just having something in that general area.

By your definition, you could claim the expression "Jumping the Shark" is also unworthy of reference because it evoke a fact happening in a TV serie that has been long forgotten except for that very expression.

[Tengu_temp]

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but just because "the all-important dictionary" says it doesn't mean everyone uses it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PersonalDictionary) (and yes, I know that example is bad, it's just the closest thing I can think of).


That's not a good argument. Even if someone disagrees with the dictionary's definition on something and uses their own definition instead, they're still wrong, no matter how much of a special snowflake they want to be. If I decide to call all animals dogs, other people will point out how wrong my decision is. And they'd be right.

The literary definition of a trope, however, is a correct, recognized one (in addition to the other definitions, because this word has more than one).

[Mina Kobold]

I thought the Voodoo Shark is when the gun was pulled out of nowhere, the audience wonders where it came from, and the playwright creates a sequel explaining that the shooter was a sorcerer who can summon guns, despite the original play being a realistic historical drama.

See, this is the problem with TV Tropes. Confusing terminology. The term "Voodoo Shark" alone implies "shark connected to loa in some way." The only way you can intuit the definition is by knowing about the Jaws franchise (not unreasonable) and further knowing that an obscure novelization of one of the sequels claimed that the family kept getting attacked by sharks as part of a voodoo curse (decidedly less reasonable).

They are trying to fix that, a lot of Tropes are currently in discussion for more recognisable names and several have had their's changed already. :smallsmile:

Not saying Voodoo Shark is not a good name (It does confuse a little but it's fairly easy to remember) but some tropes have had names that required so obscure knowledge or language skills that their meanings were hard to remember.

[Gaius Marius]

Not saying Voodoo Shark is not a good name (It does confuse a little but it's fairly easy to remember) but some tropes have had names that required so obscure knowledge or language skills that their meanings were hard to remember.

Although I have to say, one of the trope I am really glad they coined is the Nakama. As a non-japanese, I never had the chance to be able to coin this general term beyond "comrade" without looking like a communist.

I feel a lot more litterate about abstract concepts because of TvTropes, and I am more than aware that many of the depicted tropes over there aren't exactly perfectly nomenclated... But since when does something needs to be perfect to be worthy?

[The Big Dice]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.

Chekov's gun is a litteraty concept coined a long time ago, in order to avoid the Deus Ex Machina of having a gun coming out of nowhere. It's using foreshadowing in order to achieve reasonable story conclusion.


If the gun is mentionned, but not used, it's a red herring.

If the gun is pulled out of nowhere, hanged to the wall, and then used later on, it's a Vodoo Shark.

If the gun is pulled out of nowhere, it's an Asspull.
The gun is only a red herring if it is a piece of misdirection. Say a character gets shot, you think it's by the gun someone put on the wall, but in fact it was a drive by. Then the gun is a red herring.

I don't think you quite understand what the Voodoo Shark is meant to be, going by this quote. Everything in every media is pulled out of nowhere for it's introduction. Then they get put on a metaphorical wall, finally they get used. That seems like Voodoo Shark describes just about everything in movies, books and TV.

As for the so-called Asspull, I think you'll find the phrase "something from nowhere" describes the situation you mention far more accurately and elegantly.

All you're really doing is reciting buzzwords here.

All of them are storytelling tools OR storytelling failure. But all of them are tropes. The definition isn't absolute and all-encompassing, and there will always be variation from example to example. Does it mean it's wrong to try to name them, and list them in an entertaining way, trying to make it understand to a wider audience?
Does putting a pithy and often misleading or confusing name to something instantly give it merit? Do long lists of things have any meaning beyond the fact that here is a big long list of things, often with no context? Does it excuse putting things on these lists that probably sholdn't be there? Just take a look at the Timey-Wimey page and see how many of the listed items are actually anything to do with badly handled time travel.

[Tengu_temp]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.

1. Such lines as the ones I bolded really have no place in a civilized discussion. They're not bringing in anything constructive, just implying that people who argue with you suck at debating.
2. You must not have been looking hard enough, because I said why it's a good website. It's good because it's entertaining. Finding repeating patterns in fiction, thinking of examples that fit some of those patterns - for many people, that's fun. The site also works decently as an encyclopedia of various fictional works and what they actually contain, much better than Wikipedia.

[Gaius Marius]

Actually, the vodoo shark example I gave earlier applies, but you people are asking the wrong question.

A vodoo shark is when an explanation for something happening just brings more question due to its implausibility.

In short, Chekov's Gun is used to reply to the question: "where did that gun came from?".

If you have Vodoo Shark where the gun was pulled out of a character's ass, hanged unto the wall, and then used later one, the question: "Where did that gun came from" only gives the reply: "A guy pulled it out of his ass earlier on". The question was answered, but it's not nearly satisfying, it just makes the whole questionning worse:

- How can he pull a gun out of his ass?
- Why did he did it earlier?
- Why did he decided to hang the gun?

It's not merely an asspull, it's something that comes off as a premeditated asspull..

[The Big Dice]

1. Such lines as the ones I bolded really have no place in a civilized discussion. They're not bringing in anything constructive, just implying that people who argue with you suck at debating.
2. You must not have been looking hard enough, because I said why it's a good website. It's good because it's entertaining. Finding repeating patterns in fiction, thinking of examples that fit some of those patterns - for many people, that's fun. The site also works decently as an encyclopedia of various fictional works and what they actually contain, much better than Wikipedia.

Fun isn't the same as good. And all I'm asking is for people to have the same standards on both sides of the fence. Because otherwise it just turns into "I don't like it and here's why" countered with "Well I don't care because I like it and that's all that matters."

As my English Lit teacher once said, just saying you like something isn't enough. you have to be able to say why you like it. Otherwise you're just voicing an opinion, not supporting a position.

[GloatingSwine]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.


I've noticed another interesting trend, it's that when your arguments get shot down you neither cop to their incorrectness or attempt to back them up with further argumentation.


Chekov's gun is a litteraty concept coined a long time ago, in order to avoid the Deus Ex Machina of having a gun coming out of nowhere. It's using foreshadowing in order to achieve reasonable story conclusion.

Chekov's Gun is actually the opposite as well, the lesson Chekov intended is that you shouldn't introduce elements that have no bearing on the story. It's not "show a gun on the wall before you're going to fire it", it's "don't show a gun on the wall if you're not going to fire it".


The original term "Voodoo Shark" has nothing to do with Chekov's Gun, foreshadowing, or the principle of dramatic parsimony, it is simply the case when an attempt to explain a plot hole is so incomprehensible in context that the explanation is worse than leaving the original plot hole unexplained.

[SaintRidley]

Fun isn't the same as good. And all I'm asking is for people to have the same standards on both sides of the fence. Because otherwise it just turns into "I don't like it and here's why" countered with "Well I don't care because I like it and that's all that matters."

As my English Lit teacher once said, just saying you like something isn't enough. you have to be able to say why you like it. Otherwise you're just voicing an opinion, not supporting a position.

As an English Lit student, I like TVTropes and think it's good because of what it sets out to do. Categorizing and explaining the various recurring traits across media in a way that will be understood by people who are not steeped in the academics of media are worthwhile endeavors. They allow greater understanding of media.

They may unravel the mystery for you. But unraveling the mystery and actually examining what is going on is not a bad thing.

[Frozen_Feet]

Are you sure (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsATrope.htm) about that (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trope.htm)?
You realise that tropes aren't just what you think they are, right? And that there is a right way and a wrong way to use them, and that they are not quite as ubiquitous as TV Tropes makes them out to be?


... that's a trope.

You're using two different definitions of trope. As a result, you're both right and talking past each other because you're unwilling to admit that within the context of his definition, the other side is right as well.

Tropes, as certain kind of phrases, are not ubiquitous, true. Tropes, as repeating traits within entertainment, or even life, are exactly that ubiquitous, because that definition is almost all-inclusive.


Or if you read the definition on TV Tropes.


The goal of TV Tropes is to record existing tropes. They aren't supposed to be the ones codifying them. The tropes that have best entries are those that have accepted and widespread names known outside TV Tropes. Examples would be Deus Ex Machina, Anti-Hero, Chekov's Gun and Nakama. Many of the worst entries are those that were named by the tropers, because there's no linking the name to the actual content of the trope, or even worse, the trope is too fuzzy or generic to have a working definition. You shouldn't be required to know TV Tropes to be able to tell something is a trope.


Although I have to say, one of the trope I am really glad they coined is the Nakama. As a non-japanese, I never had the chance to be able to coin this general term beyond "comrade" without looking like a communist.

They didn't coin it! It was a widespread concept in Japanese culture, and that's why it's one of the better tropes. Considering "nakama" is just Japanese words for "close friend" or "comrade"... yeah. Your argument boils to irrational dislike for English. You can get the exact same meaning through using English.


I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.

Then you haven't been reading this thread very closely. :smalltongue:

I already told my opinion of why TV tropes is good and for what: it's a great place for scavenging new fiction to peruse, and while invidual tropes are hit-and-miss, the site as a whole is fairly good at dissecting and telling the actual contents of several works. I would've never heard of or considered perusing several works of fiction were it not for the site. It's like a free review magazine for TV series, expect it covers books, movies, comics and music as well.

What it fails as is a systematic source of literary deconstruction, directly caused by informal and scatter-brained editorbase. But while it falls short of its own ideals, it's still useful to an extent.

[Leliel]

That's not a good argument. Even if someone disagrees with the dictionary's definition on something and uses their own definition instead, they're still wrong, no matter how much of a special snowflake they want to be. If I decide to call all animals dogs, other people will point out how wrong my decision is. And they'd be right.


True enough. I actually meant to state that when a certain subculture uses a word in a specific way, across multiple instances, that becomes a definition.

[/lame justification]

Seriously? I couldn't find a better term, so I used the closest available.

And yes, it is stupid. I'm sorry.

(Take these words out of context at your own peril)

[Mina Kobold]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.

Because pointing out the good side doesn't diminish the bad side?

The good life of a Hutt does not diminish his Twi'lek slaves' misery, so to speak.

Of course, pointing out that something is useful in another way than the way they were argued they were not is perfectly valid and has already been done quite a few times in this thread. :smallsmile:


I don't think you quite understand what the Voodoo Shark is meant to be, going by this quote. Everything in every media is pulled out of nowhere for it's introduction. Then they get put on a metaphorical wall, finally they get used. That seems like Voodoo Shark describes just about everything in movies, books and TV.

I believe he meant "Out of nowhere" as meaning there existed no logical reason for them to be there in the first place, a random American owning a gun is pretty logical while a hippie living ten years in a jungle having state of the art computer knowledge is not.

Understand the confusion, though. ^_^


Does putting a pithy and often misleading or confusing name to something instantly give it merit? Do long lists of things have any meaning beyond the fact that here is a big long list of things, often with no context? Does it excuse putting things on these lists that probably sholdn't be there? Just take a look at the Timey-Wimey page and see how many of the listed items are actually anything to do with badly handled time travel.

I once asked the same about scientific names. Turns out it made it a lot easier to communicate what you mean if you have a label that a lot of people understand, even if it's not as mainstream as the local name for it. :3

The Timey-Wimey stuff is more of a quality problem, but I see your point there. They need more editors.

[Gaius Marius]

They didn't coin it! It was a widespread concept in Japanese culture, and that's why it's one of the better tropes. Considering "nakama" is just Japanese words for "close friend" or "comrade"... yeah. Your argument boils to irrational dislike for English. You can get the exact same meaning through using English.

What I understood, a Nakama is a group of people you belong to. You give them loyalty, you trust them. They don't have to be your friends.

What I meant by "coining" it, was to be able to identify an easy way to identify the trope. I knew of the concept before knowing the japanese word for it, and I am happy TvTropes provided me with a terminology to allow me to easily express what I mean.

It's not a matter of hating the english language, is an example of having the english language being too imprecise in its modern use to be able to express that particular form of relationship.

[Leliel]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.


Yes, because you have an interesting habit of never actually addressing our counter-arguments, and are attempting to make your own point more valid through an emotional appeal rather than through, y'know, logical debate.

Already ninja'd, it's worth pointing out.

[John Cribati]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.


...

I love going to TvTropes after watching a film or reading a book for the first time.

It gives some sort of articulated and alphabethised collective observations of the work I consumed, giving me deeper insight from peoples who saw more, know more, or simply observed differently than I. I do not accep everything up to face value, as I know there are many subjective tropes.



You may have missed this.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, it would be great if everything wrong with TvTropes stopped being a thing. I like the basic concept of the thing.

This pretty much summarizes my views on it. Unfortunately, as it is now, it's little more than a good way to kill an hour or so.


Anyway I was reading The Cambridge Companion to Homer today and they were using the term MacGuffin, which I thought was a bit weird. Troper talk doesn't sound right even when it's with some of the more well-known names. I don't think you can really get away with naming many tropes other than maybe Deus ex Machina.

Nah, MacGuffin and Deus Ex Machina are all legit terms. The only terms I use in real life are tropes that TvTropes didn't name.

[Dvandemon]

If tvtropes doesn't create a usable descriptive vocabulary, what precisely is the point? Grouping information into categories that do not facilitate any new discussion, analysis or other inquiry into their membership strikes me as being nothing more than busywork.

Tropes as a descriptive vocabulary, :smallsigh:, sure it's great if people know what you're talking about but it's better to elaborate on your point than just use a trope as a buzzword. Busywork isn't entirely bad either, it gets the mind working (no matter how little) and keeps the literary fresh and ready for analysis. But that's just my opinion. I'm not saying tvtropes is the "BEST THING EVA!" but it's also not completely terrible, not something you should just write off because you experience some degreee of crap (Remember Sturgeon's Law people?). Tropers do recognize its faults and some of the smarter ones take the initiative to actually fix that. There's literally nothing keeping the quality at its level that can't be fixed. I agree with Gaius Marius here.
The Timey-Wimey stuff is more of a quality problem, but I see your point there. They need more editors.

That would make it worse. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooManyCooksSpoilTheSoup) They need their current editors to do a better job

[Coidzor]

To give an example: Crowning Moment of Awesome, which was meant to be the single, definitive peak of a series suffered such extensive over- and misuse that the whole trope had to be detonated. Now the content has become just big, subjective lists of "awesome" moments, most of which aren't awesome. Other examples of similar deteroriation are Nightmare Fuel, Fetish Fuel, Moments of Heartwarming and so on. They're so needlessly broad as to be almost useless.

Well, no, just the people on the site itself that added this content have proven to lack brain-to-finger filters, if you say the term to someone actually familiar with the lingo, they'll grok you well enough. Neophytes now, that's the only potential problem area, because they might not realize that the terms' pages got sabotaged by being overly popular to visit and special snowflake syndrome.

[Mina Kobold]

Tropes as a descriptive vocabulary, :smallsigh:, sure it's great if people know what you're talking about but it's better to elaborate on your point than just use a trope as a buzzword. Busywork isn't entirely bad either, it gets the mind working (no matter how little) and keeps the literary fresh and ready for analysis. But that's just my opinion. I'm not saying tvtropes is the "BEST THING EVA!" but it's also not completely terrible, not something you should just write off because you experience some degreee of crap (Remember Sturgeon's Law people?). Tropers do recognize its faults and some of the smarter ones take the initiative to actually fix that. There's literally nothing keeping the quality at its level that can't be fixed. I agree with Gaius Marius here.

It's quite a lot less awkward to say "It was a red herring" than to say "It was an item included to fool the reader into thinking it was related to X and mask the real clues", though.

Especially if you are not specifically talking about it and was just explaining why it wasn't important.

Though, you are right with a lot of tropes in a lot of cases where the discussion could be enriched by a little explanation and we really should use a broader vocabulary than TvTropes. :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

Term + context is always superior to a long elaboration or just using a buzzword, after all.

[Frozen_Feet]

What I understood, a Nakama is a group of people you belong to. You give them loyalty, you trust them. They don't have to be your friends.

What I meant by "coining" it, was to be able to identify an easy way to identify the trope. I knew of the concept before knowing the japanese word for it, and I am happy TvTropes provided me with a terminology to allow me to easily express what I mean.

It's not a matter of hating the english language, is an example of having the english language being too imprecise in its modern use to be able to express that particular form of relationship.

Group, team, pack, circle of friends, partners - there are many common-word ways to express the exact same concept with equal amount of sounds or letters. The Japanese word is not, infact, superior, as it requires the other party to know that particular foreign word.

English isn't imprecise. You're just not giving it enough credit.

[Dvandemon]

@^^:The gist is it's best to be clear and concise. The problem with knowing is that it's easy to overlook not knowing.
Group, team, pack, circle of friends, partners - there are many common-word ways to express the exact same concept with equal amount of sounds or letters. The Japanese word is not, infact, superior, as it requires the other party to know that particular foreign word.

English isn't imprecise. You're just not giving it enough credit.

Or taking it for granted, a lot of people seem to find commonly used words to lose the right semantic.

[Avilan the Grey]

I've noticed an interesting trend in this thread. Nobody is attempting to say why TV Tropes is good. It's as iff people are trying to defend it, but don't really know why they're defending it. Or can't give reasons to support their position.

I do not agree. I think that most people here just don't think TVTropes needs to be defended. It's fun, addictive and full of information.

[Psyren]

Fun isn't the same as good.

But neither are they unrelated.

[Mina Kobold]

Group, team, pack, circle of friends, partners - there are many common-word ways to express the exact same concept with equal amount of sounds or letters. The Japanese word is not, infact, superior, as it requires the other party to know that particular foreign word.

English isn't imprecise. You're just not giving it enough credit.

Circle of friends certainly fit, although 'Nakama' is a neat word to describe the quality of being in said circle (like 'friendly', except more specific) but group, team and pack just mean several indivicuals collected in one place or the like. Am I wrong?

Tally ho, wouldn't talking about existing words for the same be irrelevant since people will use the word they prefer? Seems to be how language have evolved through the ages. :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

Circle of friends certainly fit, although 'Nakama' is a neat word to describe the quality of being in said circle (like 'friendly', except more specific) but group, team and pack just mean several indivicuals collected in one place or the like. Am I wrong?

Well, considering what is "neat" varies from person to person, it's impossible to say you're right or wrong, Keveak. :smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

Team and pack just mean several indivicuals collected in one place or the like.

Have you never seen or heard the expression "I thought we were supposed to be a team" used in an emotional context? Especially in sports etc., being in a team is much more than just being in the same place at the same time. It's about working together for a common goal and not betraying the team.

Likewise, expressions like "team spirit" or "group spirit" don't ring a bell?

[The Extinguisher]

Debating about words never goes well.

Eventually we all just come to the conclusion that nothing means anything, you can't communicate with anyone, and anything that looks like coherent communication is just coincidence banging on the keyboard.

[Psyren]

Debating about words never goes well.

Eventually we all just come to the conclusion that nothing means anything, you can't communicate with anyone, and anything that looks like coherent communication is just coincidence banging on the keyboard.

But without semantics, these discussions would only be a page long

[Mina Kobold]

Well, considering what is "neat" varies from person to person, it's impossible to say you're right or wrong, Keveak. :smalltongue:

Neat as in useful and easy to use for the brainless bunch.

Which reminds me:

Braaaaains? You got braaaaains?


Have you never seen or heard the expression "I thought we were supposed to be a team" used in an emotional context? Especially in sports etc., being in a team is much more than just being in the same place at the same time. It's about working together for a common goal and not betraying the team.

Likewise, expressions like "team spirit" or "group spirit" don't ring a bell?

Well, yes. But I thought those refered to staying as a group instead of everybody doing their own thing and messing with the coordination.

That is oftentimes nakama, but I don't think it always is. Sometimes it's just tactics and loyalty to a leader, nakama being friendship and loyalty to the entire group. :smallsmile:

Like Friend-Patrionism! But with a Japanese name! Which makes it automatically cooler! :smalltongue:

[Anarion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet
Have you never seen or heard the expression "I thought we were supposed to be a team" used in an emotional context? Especially in sports etc., being in a team is much more than just being in the same place at the same time. It's about working together for a common goal and not betraying the team.

Likewise, expressions like "team spirit" or "group spirit" don't ring a bell?
Well, yes. But I thought those refered to staying as a group instead of everybody doing their own thing and messing with the coordination.

That is oftentimes nakama, but I don't think it always is. Sometimes it's just tactics and loyalty to a leader, nakama being friendship and loyalty to the entire group.

This is actually a good reason for using the term "Nakama." It's an example of a word in another language that doesn't have a perfect 1 to 1 translation into English, but rather expresses a broader concept. Like Deja Vu from French. Nakama expresses team spirit and loyalty, but also a general feeling of respect towards a whole group and not just the leader, and has a legitimate argument for simply being imported into English.

Regarding the broader conversation, I'd like to add that I wish I had known about TV Tropes when I was taking AP English in high school. At the time, I really thought that a lot of the symbolism and character devices that my teacher discussed were a bunch of baloney, whereas the witty and sarcastic presentation of many of the best tropes actually makes it believable that an author would use them. Admittedly, part of my acceptance of literary devices and tropes was just getting older and taking some college courses. However, I really think that TV Tropes contributes to the discourse by encouraging one to think about plot and characterization practically, whereas industry terms of art sometimes contribute to overly formalized and incomprehensible writing.

[kpenguin]

Right. I think the first thing we need to lay down is a cohesive definition of the word "trope".

According to Merriam-Wesbster, a trope is:


1
a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : figure of speech
b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché <the usual horror movie tropes>
2
: a phrase or verse added as an embellishment or interpolation to the sung parts of the Mass in the Middle Ages

The bolded definition is the one I believe most relevant to the discussion. Since we are speaking of the TV Tropes wiki in specific, it is important to also note their own definition of trope:


On this wiki, "trope" has the even more general meaning of a recognizable pattern — not only within the media works themselves, but also in related aspects such as the behind-the-scenes aspects of creation, the technical features of a medium, and the fan experience. Around here, it is a stunt root, as in, "That isn't really different enough from our other tropes to be separately tropeable." The tropability of a work is referred to as its tropiness.

If we are to believe their definition, then the purpose of TV Tropes is pattern recognition. That is, things that occur more than once in works, both fiction and nonfiction. For this purpose, a good trope entry seems to have:


A Trope Name, thus naming the pattern
A description of the trope, defining the pattern.
A list of examples, proving the pattern.


The purpose of the first is simple. By giving a shorthand name for the pattern, it allows us to communicate more clearly and concisely about the pattern and its occurrence within works. Whether or not the name is a good one is a matter of the quality of the editor, but I believe it is important to pin down names for patterns observed.

The purpose of the second is to describe what the pattern is. A good trope definition, upon reading, should make the reader begin to recognize how the trope has been used in works they have already encountered and, as well, allow them to identify the trope upon encountering works in the future. This too, is important. To identify a pattern, we must also discover what connection the works have.

The final bit, the lists, takes up the bulk of the trope page. While the "listing" of examples has been derided, I believe it is necessary to the task of pattern identification. Without examples, there is nothing to make up the pattern. The list of examples is there to prove that the pattern exists and to demonstrate how the pattern is used and how pervasive it is.

Now, what does this pattern identification do for us? What good does TV Tropes do for us?

First and foremost, I believe that TV Tropes is entertaining. Just as most of the works it looks like are created for entertainment, I believe that much of TV Tropes' popularity derives from its entertainment factor. The casual manner of the writing and the manner in which tropes are named and described are, if not completely professional, amusing to some. Furthermore, there is the simple pleasure of recognition. Observational comedy is based on our ability to recognize commonplace aspects of life. So too do I believe the amusement of the wiki is based on our ability to recognize commonplace aspects of fiction.

Second, it gives us a common vocabulary to work with when discussing works. Trope naming, whether good or bad, gives us a shorthand, allowing us to efficiently speak about the patterns without giving a long drawn out explanation. Now, it has been brought up that trope naming sometimes, if not often, relies on obscure references or bizarre punning. This is true, and it does make it difficult to those new to TV Tropes to enter conversation. However, I would posit that this is not unique to TV Tropes and that many manufactured vocabulary feels arbitrary and obtuse to an outsider. Take "spam", for instance. Its common usage in relation to the internet and its usage relating to the artificial pork product have little in common, save for a single Monty Python skit. If one were to have never seen this Monty Python skit, and many who use the word "spam" have not, then the reason the word "spam" means to send repetitive messages in bulk might be lost.

Finally, it provides a basis for analysis. This is not to say that TV Tropes is particularly good at analysis itself. It is not. However, recognizing patterns is one way of understanding works, and perhaps the nature of creating them. Once you've pinned down a pattern, you can begin to ask why it exists. If it is a device, then we may ask why it is used and how it was created. If it is a coincidence, then we may ask why so many different authors chose to use that same trope. Just as wikipedia is a springboard to understanding a topic, eventually moving on to more rigorous sources, TV Tropes may be used as a springboard to understanding an aspect of fiction, writing, or human nature.

[Avilan the Grey]

Circle of friends certainly fit, although 'Nakama' is a neat word to describe the quality of being in said circle (like 'friendly', except more specific)

I disagree; "Circle of Friends" is not even close to Nakama. The western closest to being equivalent is "Band Of Brothers".

[Frozen_Feet]

I utterly fail to see how it's "not even close", when it's one of the direct translations my dictionary gives. Anyways, while we are talking about the "high concept" of Nakama as presented in a trope, the word itself is used as a mundane expression as well, like when referring to a friend or a co-worker. Just like "team" in English has the mundane connotation (bunch of people working on a thing) and the high connotation I talked about earlier.

[GloatingSwine]

I utterly fail to see how it's "not even close".

"Nakama" aren't required to be friends, or even like each other much. All that is required is that they have some common bond that keeps them together.

It's a word which has lots of different possible translations, and which one is appropriate depends on context. You get that a lot with translation.

[Frozen_Feet]

^ ie., just like team members.

The original argument was that English somehow failed to convey a specific meaning. However, as this discussion has advanced and the people involved have changed, I've come to think that the situation is exactly opposite. English is the more specific language; Japanese just has one really broad word for lot of related concepts. Which would be a point against adopting Nakama word into English - it doesn't add anything that isn't already there.

[Trog]

*reads first post only*

*replies*

The way that the story elements shown on TV tropes has been used (at least here if not elsewhere on the internet) in the majority of references that I have seen it has bugged me for a while. All sorts of people are slamming things that have been traditional story elements that go back before they were born. Or hell before I was born since I'm older than the majority of you. There's this stupid attitude that if it's on TV tropes it's crap.

Utter bull****.

All TV tropes is is a comprehensive list of common (and not so common, sometimes) story devices. The judgement that someone else's creation is crap because it contains something that that judging person read in TVtropes merely indicates this person's need to somehow tear down something someone else made to make themselves feel good.

The all-emcompassing nature of TVtropes makes it impossible not to use a device that would somehow fall under one or more of the listed tropes. And if there IS something new that someone created in a story that is unique? Some nerd will add it to TVtropes and then a bunch of other nerds will declare said thing to be crap.

And now, to fully round this out, someone should add the above sort of nerd behavior to TV tropes just so their words too can be considered trite and overdone. Add mine in there too while you're at it. Nevermind, who am I kidding? Both yours and mine are probably already on there.

Meanwhile, I'll see the site for what it is: A brilliant idea to boost hit counts and a rather tedious-to-look-through catalog of literary devices with far too many annoying self-references to generate said hit counts.

[GloatingSwine]

There's this stupid attitude that if it's on TV tropes it's crap.


I think the argument is more that the website itself is crap. Which most of it is, as a good 50% of the entries are generally people reaaally stretching the definition of the trope so they can crowbar their favourite show onto another page...

[Dvandemon]

For all it's problems we can remember this:
The wiki is going where it is going. Hang on for the ride!

[Kato]

Okay, I really didn't feel like reading all the walls of text here... so, a general question: are we discussing whether tv tropes is a good site (not as in entertaining but as in... well scientific/academic) or whether collecting tropes is okay?

First thing... no. I like the site if I'm not wasting a whole afternoon there but because anyone can edit it it's not a good place if you are looking for serious information. The serious part isn't so bad but it's still a bit annoying.

As for tropes in general. I'm not the type who likes to analyze stuff, like poems and such but tropes usually aren't such a hassle. If you don't care for it, stay away from it. *shrug*

[SDF]

Meanwhile, I'll see the site for what it is: A brilliant idea to boost hit counts and a rather tedious-to-look-through catalog of literary devices with far too many annoying self-references to generate said hit counts.

That's one of the two real problems I have with it. The fact that linking a trope will cause someone to spend hours on it jumping from page to page trying to figure out what the hell the original page meant means the entire setup is clumsy and poorly put together. Most of the exposition is a chain of masturbatory in jokes designed to sent you in a circle. Whereas wikipedia would sent you to multiple articles because of your curiosity, tvtropes will sent you to multiple articles to figure out what anyone is talking about.

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if it were self contained. All established communities have them, including this site, and they are generally in good fun and for bonds between members. My second problem with TV tropes is the usage of it in passing reference or argument on other sites. It is both annoying and lazy when used in an argument, and in passing reference it is just an in joke of a different web community. Like, you spent hours on a different site, hey cool, why not reference it in THAT community. Sure, there are people here that will get it if you reference tropes on this site, but I think this topic proves that there are an equal number of people that will get annoyed when you do it. People that don't want to spend a lot of time on that website to get what you are talking about, when in fact it would be faster for people that don't go there for you to just explain what you meant rather than invoking a trope.

[Mewtarthio]

Okay, I really didn't feel like reading all the walls of text here... so, a general question: are we discussing whether tv tropes is a good site (not as in entertaining but as in... well scientific/academic) or whether collecting tropes is okay?

I personally have nothing against literary deconstruction. The website, though... well, anyone can edit it, so the quality's about what you could expect. Granted, I suppose I could personally go through there and bring every page I see up to my own personal standard of quality, but that strikes me as horribly arrogant, not to mention a bit of a waste of time. Still, so long as it serves as an outlet for the sort of people who clog up Wikipedia's "In Popular Culture" sections, it can't be all bad. :smallwink:

[Zain]

After reading the thread, I find it hard to feel as if I'm not repeating someone else's argument, but for me tvtropes is a simple list of examples of traits to a story, and proves a (sometimes confusing) explanation of those traits. While there is quite a bit of self-reference, I find the puns in the names oddly clever and amusing.

[doliest]

Text

.....You know, I've seen arguements on whether or not you should use Wikipedia for anything other than entertainment. I could understand those arguements. However, I question what people are even arguing about here; TvTropes proclaims openly on it's front page that it doesn't take itself seriously as anything other than an informal site that anyone can edit. It's fun. It's an entertaining read. It's an easy reference sheet. It helped me get a faster grip on an annoying story I had to read for English. :smallwink:

I'm getting off-topic; What I mean is, what's the arguement? That it's not useful/is useful? It's a handy way to keep track of the formula's used to make shows. And it's entertaining. That the names aren't good/are good? They're changing them. Oh, and Fetish Fuel is inherently on a Troper-by-Troper basis. It's talking about Fetishes. :smallbiggrin:

Off-Topic Again. Sorry. My point was....
What are we arguing about?:smallconfused:

[Helanna]

Off-Topic Again. Sorry. My point was....
What are we arguing about?:smallconfused:

At this point, I'm not sure.

I just popped in to say a couple of things. First of all, TV Tropes basically introduced me to the internet. While working on a story, I Googled "list of fantasy cliches" and ended up on TV Tropes, and immediately set about reading the entire main index. The first thing I really noticed was webcomics. "Huh," I thought. "Comics on the internet. That's interesting . . . wow. This Order of the Stick thing comes up a lot. Maybe it's some good?" So I clicked on a link to it, and I've been addicted to Giantitp ever since. Same thing's happened with a ton of other comics/books/shows/games/etc. TV Tropes was the gateway (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesAsAGatewayDrug) to practically everything I enjoy now, and I mean everything. So that's one good thing - it's a good way to find new things to enjoy.

Second, since no one's brought it up, it's also a good way to find old things you've forgotten. Just earlier today, I was trying to remember a short story I read a while ago. All I could remember was that it was about a utopia that was caused by a child's suffering. It was driving me crazy, until I remembered I could just look at TV Trope's page on Powered By A Forsaken Child. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoweredByAForsakenChild) Click on 'Literature' and the story I was looking for was "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".

[Forum Explorer]

At this point, I'm not sure.

I just popped in to say a couple of things. First of all, TV Tropes basically introduced me to the internet. While working on a story, I Googled "list of fantasy cliches" and ended up on TV Tropes, and immediately set about reading the entire main index. The first thing I really noticed was webcomics. "Huh," I thought. "Comics on the internet. That's interesting . . . wow. This Order of the Stick thing comes up a lot. Maybe it's some good?" So I clicked on a link to it, and I've been addicted to Giantitp ever since. Same thing's happened with a ton of other comics/books/shows/games/etc. TV Tropes was the gateway (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesAsAGatewayDrug) to practically everything I enjoy now, and I mean everything. So that's one good thing - it's a good way to find new things to enjoy.

Second, since no one's brought it up, it's also a good way to find old things you've forgotten. Just earlier today, I was trying to remember a short story I read a while ago. All I could remember was that it was about a utopia that was caused by a child's suffering. It was driving me crazy, until I remembered I could just look at TV Trope's page on Powered By A Forsaken Child. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoweredByAForsakenChild) Click on 'Literature' and the story I was looking for was "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".

I agree. I mostly use Tv Tropes as two things:

1. I'm really bored and wasting time till something happens.

2. To find old and new intresting books, comics, animes, and basically most types of media.

On the other topic I don't think saying something fits into a paticular trope makes that thing any worse. Why would it?

[dehro]

I respectfully disagree. While it doesn't cheapen the story you're referring to in this example (the story in which Character X is a character), I certainly think that it cheapens the conversation you're having about the story. Would I rather hear

"Character X used to be a bad guy. Then he was sent to spy on the good guys by pretending to be a good guy, but he ended up really liking the good guys and in the end he turned good for real",

Or would I rather hear

"Character X Became the Mask."

When someone is telling me about the story? 100% emphatically always, the first option.

That said, TVTropes is fun to waste time on. :smalltongue:

I mostly agree with this. I'll be utterly personal and try to rationalise the thought behind it..though the attempt won't satisfy everybody and will still be utterly personal (which is also relevant to the issue I believe, as that's my main problem with tropes to begin with)
every movie or book or everything artificial for that matters is made using tools, raw materials and artifices that have per se no relation to the final product. when I watch someone getting stabbed in a movie and it goes "splortch" I don't really care to know that the splortch is obtained by squeezing an orange or whatever other way they've done it. I might like to read it somewhere afterwards, as a bit of fun trivia.. but all I seem to read, when tropes are used in a debate is "oh, it's just an orange squeeze, nothing new there" in some sort of half derisive-demeaning way to say the author or foley artist or what have you is basically a moron who could't come up with something new and personal like, I don't know, the "melon drop from extreme heights"
what bugs me overmuch in the use of tropes is the use of tropes in debating something outside of the boundaries of the TV tropes website.

it's like attempting to define the physics in say... middle earth, and then trying to convince us to use those same definitions to talk about... klingon pudding or krypton...and when you notice it doesn't work you just stretch the middle-earth definition until you get something that is semantically defendable and kinda works... why bother?
it's cool within the semi-serious sarcastic and fanboyish nature of the tv-tropes website... outside it's boundaries it's mostly used as a negative tool, an attempt to patronise, diminish and deride an author's efforts through some sort of generalisation of his creative method, or just a way to shut out from the debate those that aren't "hip" enough to get the tv-tropes reference...which in my eyes is just as bad as using textspeak
the same thing, in a minor key, happens in the "random superpowers" thread, where an entire wikia-website is dedicated to putting generic labels and names to powers of a somehow similar nature found across a multitude of media, even though they might in fact not be similar at all, and refer to scenarios and worlds that are..worlds apart. so you'll find for instance superman's immunity to bullets debated in the same breath with achilles' invulnerability, and the fact you can't shoot teletubbies (sadly) because it's a kiddie show. (yes, I've made this particular example up).
it's funny and works within the realms of that particular wikia, but who in his right mind would compare classical mythology, marvel comics, and pre-scholar children entertainment actually using that wikia for reference if not to give air to their tonsils and/or make a funny?
to use that sort of broad all encompassing (not to mention self-referential) definition across several medias wouldn't make sense.
with the tv tropes however, (especially on this forum, in my limited experience) they seem to have "invaved" us and have become some sort of essential tool to be used in an actual serious debate about whatever novel, comic, movie, tv-show we care to mention. most often in a negative way.

so, yeah, I like tv-tropes... better when they're in the tv-tropes website and people don't try to shove them in my face as a valid tool for literary debate. whether those tropes have a point or contain a grain of truth (or even a big handful of truth) just isn't relevant in my personal view of things.
The same way, I do think most GOOD comedians who take a sarcastic view on something, say, politics or football training, more often than not have a point (or their jokes wouldn't be funny), but I still think their "alternative solutions" hold the same measure of effectiveness as whatever could be dreamed up by "some guy in a bar".
ultimately, to pretend that tv-tropes contains absolute truths and has enough authority to be used as a failsafe tool or literary definition is like allowing our culture be grounded on and shaped by wikipedia entries..which is good and well and can actually be of reasonably good quality, but let us not forget it's ultimately a list of definitions that are compiled by..whoever cared to do so.

I've seen friends of mine who happen to speak a bit of english translate wikipedia entries into italian without having any kind of specialised competence on the subject of the entry itself, except for a reasonable level of culture and common sense. they may not have made any mistakes I am aware of in the translation process, but then I too am not an expert.. and I just know that some kid in an italian school is out there pitting his hopes for a good grade on something done in another language by god knows who, and translated by a guy who's barely out of school himself

tv-tropes aren't much different in my views.. and should not be used in any debate outside of the tv-tropes website itself, especially not if the debate is of fanboyish nature where you just know there will be semantics and arguments based on "you said that... but..." where the use of the trope will give birth to self referential sub-debates that are ultimately pointless and out of touch with the original debate.

[Prime32]

^ ie., just like team members.

The original argument was that English somehow failed to convey a specific meaning. However, as this discussion has advanced and the people involved have changed, I've come to think that the situation is exactly opposite. English is the more specific language; Japanese just has one really broad word for lot of related concepts. Which would be a point against adopting Nakama word into English - it doesn't add anything that isn't already there.I'm sure I've seen "Become one of my nakama" used in a blackmail situation, and subbed as "Join me".

[Asthix]

I recently was informed that I'm the worst kind of hipster because I avoid TV Tropes on the grounds that it's too trendy. (it does permeate almost every message board in existence) I'll never be able to keep up with all the 'new slang' and the site has never had the appeal of sucking me in or making me lose half a day. Besides, I rather enjoy letting strange terminology wash over me and absorbing a general impression of its meaning over time. It makes me feel like an anthropologist.

[SaintRidley]

That's one of the two real problems I have with it. The fact that linking a trope will cause someone to spend hours on it jumping from page to page trying to figure out what the hell the original page meant means the entire setup is clumsy and poorly put together.


You think that's why people click around on the site forever? I always assumed they did it for the same reason I did - in reading the page they saw something amusing or interesting linked and went to read that, and so on.

[Avilan the Grey]

You think that's why people click around on the site forever? I always assumed they did it for the same reason I did - in reading the page they saw something amusing or interesting linked and went to read that, and so on.

Exactly. We do it because we are addicted. Not because it is a faulty design.

[Psyren]

You think that's why people click around on the site forever? I always assumed they did it for the same reason I did - in reading the page they saw something amusing or interesting linked and went to read that, and so on.

Indeed, this is what I do. (And there's a name for it too. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WikiWalk)) I always understand what the first page means. The articles, through Wiki Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WikiMagic), end up written quite well.

The difference between a roomful of monkeys on typewriters and a posse of tropers is simple - if you're editing a page, chances are you care about what's on it, and therefore you put in that extra effort to make it properly represented.

Unless you're a vandal - but wiki software is very robust at giving the admins tools to root those out.

[dehro]

Unless you're a vandal - but wiki software is very robust at giving the admins tools to root those out.

quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

[Psyren]

quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

"Getting known" fixes that - in general, the folks who take the time to make a name for themselves on a wiki are the ones that actually care about its content.

Of course, edit wars do break out, but the alternative is one guy or small group of guys doing all the editing, which would be a massive step backwards in terms of the internet.

[Thiyr]

Group, team, pack, circle of friends, partners - there are many common-word ways to express the exact same concept with equal amount of sounds or letters. The Japanese word is not, infact, superior, as it requires the other party to know that particular foreign word.

English isn't imprecise. You're just not giving it enough credit.

I'm going to disagree with you on this matter. I'm viewing this situation as similar to something that's come up for me quite a bit. I've kinda constantly been tossed into the same discussion a few times about the different forms of love. Agape, Eros, and Philia. Really common terminology being used there when talking about love, because each of them holds a different connotation. Similarly, when I hear each of those different terms you gave, each has a connotation for me. Similarly, if i hear nakama, it carries certain implications that, say, group does not. For instance, nakama (at least as far as i've always understood it), doesn't imply a goal, which the first two above do, and implies a level of lasting commitment to the wellbeing of the others involved in all regards. This was well put before as a "bond" (I contend that there is a difference between a common bond and a common goal, which I feel is a major part of being part of a team. I was on a great many little league teams where we shared many a goal, but never a common bond). The only one above that I would include that in would be pack, but that implies something that feels more animal, that is, once again, something unimplied by nakama. So while the above all get across the general concept of group, it's the details implied by the term that make the difference.

Sorry for the wall-o-text. I really need to learn how not to ramble like this...