People overuse TV Tropes/trope vocabulary, at the expense of effective communication [Archive]

Bartle

2013-09-05, 02:46 PM

The best solution is to use a link to the TV Tropes. :smallamused:I think it still hurts communication, but if you *must* (???) use an exclusionary term, it seems like a compromise.

And not using it... is not an option for those for whom tropes have become a major part of active vocabulary. Hell, I'm not a native English speaker, and I got most of my current active vocabulary from reading that site! Once you start thinking with tropes, you can't just go back to discussing comic without seeing tropes in everything. For someone saying "This was a crowning moment of awesome!" may ruin the immersion, but for a troper it IS immersion.
(that was kinda offtopic)Well... I'm guessing "can't just go back" is probably an exaggeration. But if using trope vocab satisfies you, know that it's exclusionary and will damage your communication.

As someone who finds Bartle's linguistic prescriptivism equally aggravatingLet's see, I'm assuming you mean "linguistic prescription" as Wikipedia puts it:

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

I'd agree with one particular portion of that definition (if you'd broken out exactly what you meant, rather than leaving me to guess, I could reply more effectively): "It may imply a view that some forms [...] lack communicative effect"

Absolutely. I'm sorry you find that aggravating.

Likewise, by 80 years from now, "Fridge Logic" and "Idiot Ball" may be in common use.

Don't protest the language. Instead, just understand it. Language is a living, breathing thing. You can't constrain it by protesting it's use.First: I could be wrong, but I *really* don't think that trope vocabulary is going to penetrate the mainstream much, certainly not in proportion to the amount of trope vocabulary that exists. Maybe a few terms, but really, the chances of any given term making it in are going to be quite low.

If people want to use special, exclusionary terminology, they can, and they might even be somewhat vindicated later. But right now, it's a small convenience to one part of the audience, at a loss of understanding to another part of the audience. I argue that the highest purpose of communicating is helping your audience understand, and it trumps all (?) other considerations.

Bartle

2013-09-05, 03:03 PM

Bartle, communication is a TWO WAY STREET. If you are SO LAZY as to find it too onerous to do a Single. Google. Search for a term that someone uses that is unfamiliar to you, if you are SO ELITIST AND ENTITLED as to expect that everyone has to spoon-feed information to you in the manner of your dictation, then frankly I am not interested in communicating with you at all, and you are not part of the intended audience for those comments.I insist nothing, I expect nothing. I simply advise that you follow Einstein's example, and minimize outside references, if you wish to communicate effectively.

I also claim that people enjoy using trope vocabulary too much, if communicating effectively is important to them. They've let their own enjoyment trump the imparting of understanding, which, I argue, is probably the highest goal of communication.

LadyEowyn

2013-09-05, 03:30 PM

I think a lot of TvTropes terms are fairly self-explanatory. For example:

- Magnificent Bastard: Someone who is magnificent, but also a bastard.
- Crowning Moment of Awesome: That was really awesome.
- Idiot Ball: This character is acting (uncharacteristically) like an idiot.

Some of the others (Fridge Logic, Face Heel Turn) are less immediately comprehensible - the latter derives not directly from TvTropes, but from professional wrestling - but generally understandable from context.

I think the frequent use of tropes is because people over at TvTropes are huge, huge fans of this strip (it's got one of the longest pages on the site), and so fans over there migrate to the forums over here. (It's how I got here.) And they're used to using the trope names in discussions over there, so they continue using them over here.

There will always be people who don't understand some things (I occasionally have to ask people about references to D&D and other games that I'm not familiar with). But I haven't seen any significant number of people here who find it a meaningful barrier to understanding, just people who find it annoying. For my part, I don't - it's not about breaking a story down into nothing more than little pieces; used analytically it's a useful tool for understanding how stories are told, and used casually it's a convenient form of shorthand.

Inside joke? A fair portion of this whole comic is composed of inside jokes. They're used to entertain, not to exclude, and so is TvTropes.

Mx.Silver

2013-09-05, 03:36 PM

And I've remembered why it is I don't go into the discussions on the comic.

In regards to the actual issue, I can sort of see things both ways a bit. I mean, I still remember back when TVTropes had some insanely unintuitive names kicking around ('The Toblerone' being the most infamous example). These days most terms are at least somewhat intuitive.
Nonetheless, I can understand where you're coming from a bit. The fact of the matter is, trope-words are basically a jargon, albeit a rather odd one (in that a lot of them arose in lay fandom of a field, rather than amongst those working in it*). Not a terribly inaccessible jargon, I'd have thought, but jargon nonetheless. Part of the reason I don't really use them much myself these days.

*nor more involved/academic, criticism. Although this may be more due to TVTropes itself trying to distance itself from being a platform for criticism than anything else.

GoblinArchmage

2013-09-05, 03:39 PM

Disregarding the forums, the idea of the site is interesting, and could actually work if it wasn't a public wiki that anyone could edit. An encyclopedia of tropes and analysis of those tropes would actually be a useful scholarly source, provided actual scholars wrote the articles.

What it actually is, though, is a bunch of internet nerds making meaningless lists and spouting inside jokes. Yes, I understand that such and such cliche appears a lot in literature, film, television, et c., but so what? How does this cliche relate to the thematic ideas of these works? What does it say about the culture that the works came from? Why did the authors make use of it?

Also, why do so many of the tropes have obscure Japanese names from the Anime fanbase? I really don't buy the defense that "there is no direct translation."

edit: I will say that it can be a fun site, which is cool, I guess.

LadyEowyn

2013-09-05, 03:53 PM

I think you are vastly mistaken in presuming that it wants to be an academic resource. It's deliberately informal and geeky.

Tavar

2013-09-05, 03:53 PM

Also, why do so many of the tropes have obscure Japanese names from the Anime fanbase? I really don't buy the defense that "there is no direct translation."
Often times? I would actually say there isn't a direct translation. Or, at least, not one that's succinct. Connotation is a real thing.

Of course, it also depends on the exact words.

edit: I will say that it can be a fun site, which is cool, but it isn't the academic resource that it wants to be.
Is it trying to be an academic resource? I see this accusation all the time, but given the policies of the cite, I can't see any way you'd get that, unless you think that the only thing you can do with media is academic analysis.

My view is that TVtropes is a fun site, and those decrying it as not being an academic resource are kinda missing the point.

Tanuki Tales

2013-09-05, 03:56 PM

I hear the term "Fridge Logic" used quite often to be honest.

And that's all I'm adding and will now steer clear of this thread. I don't believe it'll end up in a nice place.

Tock Zipporah

2013-09-05, 03:57 PM

I insist nothing, I expect nothing. I simply advise that you follow Einstein's example, and minimize outside references, if you wish to communicate effectively.

I also claim that people enjoy using trope vocabulary too much, if communicating effectively is important to them. They've let their own enjoyment trump the imparting of understanding, which, I argue, is probably the highest goal of communication.

On the contrary, communication scholars have found that there are multiple purposes for communication. "Imparting understanding" is only one of them.

Another very important purpose of communication is to build relationships. One of the ways this occurs is when people in a group or community develop certain "in-group" language. the OotS forums is FILLED with many examples of such communication.

Some non-TV tropes examples of relationship-building in-group communication used on this forum (all of which would, according to your argument, be "exclusionary" to people unfamiliar with the forum):

OP - Original Poster
RAW - Rules As Written
OtOoPCs, SoD, SS&DT, DCF, NCFtPB, W&XP, DStP - All terms used to refer to the OotS books
Z, V - Abbreviations for Zz'dtri and Vaarsuvius
The Giant - Nickname for the site owner
Tiers - Refers to differences in D&D character power levels
OotSverse - Refers to the "world" the comic takes place in
Ninja'd - When someone posts a similar response to yours right before you

I could go on, but these are a quick sampling off the top of my head.

Some of these terms are used in many other forums (we could call them "forumspeak"). Others are D&D specific. Others are OotS specific. But all are hard to understand to those not familiar with them. And yet, you only protest the terms that come from TV tropes?

These terms are used to help members of the forum community feel closer to each other. People who read these terms, are first confused, then learn to understand them and use them themselves are going through a relationship-building process that makes them feel more like part of the community. Protesting against their use because "it makes it harder to understand" ignores this community-building aspect of communication.

Case in point:

I think you are vastly mistaken in presuming that it wants to be an academic resource. It's deliberately informal and geeky.

We're geeky because we're a COMMUNITY of geeks.

BroomGuys

2013-09-05, 03:57 PM

TV Tropes is a dumb site that promotes pseudo intellectual "analysis" of media.

I think you're being a little too hard on TV Tropes. Let me elaborate:

Disregarding the forums, the idea of the site is interesting, and could actually work if it wasn't a public wiki that anyone could edit. An encyclopedia of tropes and analysis of those tropes would actually be a useful scholarly source, provided actual scholars wrote the articles.

The public wiki thing allows for an enormous amount of manpower; the number of articles on so many different particular works of fiction would be beyond a Herculean effort for a small number of people with a background in literary criticism and cinema studies and the like.

What it actually is, though, is a bunch of internet nerds making meaningless lists and spouting inside jokes. Yes, I understand that such and such cliche appears a lot in literature, film, television, et c., but so what? How does this cliche relate to the thematic ideas of these works? What does it say about the culture that the works came from? Why did the authors make use of it?

This seems to me like a bit of unfair reductionism. People like inside jokes, and we're posting in a different thread about TV Tropes, so the term "internet nerds" is probably one we shouldn't treat as so negative. :smallwink:

Yes, there is a significant lack of analytical depth to TV Tropes articles, but I don't view shallower levels of analysis as quite so utterly worthless.

Also, why do so many of the tropes have obscure Japanese names from the Anime fanbase? I really don't buy the defense that "there is no direct translation."

They picked names they like (whoever "they" are in the first place). Many TV Tropes folks are probably big fans of anime and they find that the name they have best suits the trope (especially if it's a very common trope in anime). To call it by a translated version probably feels lame to big fans of whatever anime the name came from. Anyway, I don't think this is that harmful as long as a proper translation is there at the beginning of the page.

edit: I will say that it can be a fun site, which is cool, but it isn't the academic resource that it wants to be.

And here seems to be the crux of the matter. I believe TV Tropes describes itself as "a buttload more informal" than Wikipedia, which is also not scholarly. I don't think TV Tropes is supposed to be academic at all; it's just nerd having fun talking about stuff they like on the internet. Feeling a bit of irritation at the fandom is perfectly normal, but I just don't think the site deserves quite as much denouncing as you're giving it.

Bartle

2013-09-05, 04:22 PM

Thanks for participating.

I think a lot of TvTropes terms are fairly self-explanatory. For example:

- Magnificent Bastard: Someone who is magnificent, but also a bastard.
- Crowning Moment of Awesome: That was really awesome.
- Idiot Ball: This character is acting (uncharacteristically) like an idiot.I agree, though I do have a bit of trouble with "Idiot Ball". Why a ball and not a stick? Does "ball" have some particular significance that I should be trying to figure out?

Some of the others (Fridge Logic, Face Heel Turn) are less immediately comprehensible - the latter derives not directly from TvTropes, but from professional wrestling - but generally understandable from context.Agreed. And the "not directly from TvTropes" is why I've expanded it to "trope vocabulary" after someone pointed out that a lot of tropes were simply *documented* by TV Tropes.

I think the frequent use of tropes is because people over at TvTropes are huge, huge fans of this strip (it's got one of the longest pages on the site), and so fans over there migrate to the forums over here. (It's how I got here.) And they're used to using the trope names in discussions over there, so they continue using them over here.

There will always be people who don't understand some things (I occasionally have to ask people about references to D&D and other games that I'm not familiar with). But I haven't seen any significant number of people here who find it a meaningful barrier to understanding, just people who find it annoying. For my part, I don't - it's not about breaking a story down into nothing more than little pieces; used analytically it's a useful tool for understanding how stories are told, and used casually it's a convenient form of shorthand.Sure, I understand. But even though there's a large number of Tropers here, it's not an extension of TV Tropes, and throwing around terms that aren't self-explanatory is going to lose part of the audience. Also, we don't know how many people don't miss a reference but don't say that they don't understand, so it may confuse more people than you think.

D&D references are a bit of a special case - the comic is at least loosely based on D&D, and so we can reasonably expect some special D&D terminology to be thrown around. That's a known "price of admission".

Inside joke? A fair portion of this whole comic is composed of inside jokes. They're used to entertain, not to exclude, and so is TvTropes.Ah! But the inside jokes are self-contained as part of the comic. You read the comic, you get the jokes. Trope vocabulary, though, has *no* special relationship to the comic, and shouldn't be required reading for someone who values effective communication. (As an aside, I believe that a lot of people who throw around trope vocabulary *are* using it to be exclusionary, but I'm not arguing it... just that it *is* exclusionary, in practice.)

Bartle

2013-09-05, 04:26 PM

And I've remembered why it is I don't go into the discussions on the comic.*sigh* I know. I promised myself I would never get into a tear-down discussion on these forums. Now look at me. :smallfrown:

Not a terribly inaccessible jargon, I'd have thought, but jargon nonetheless. Part of the reason I don't really use them much myself these days.And I would say that you are very wise to have made that decision.

Bartle

2013-09-05, 04:27 PM

I don't believe it'll end up in a nice place.Ha! Wise. I don't escalate, but I'm just one person.

CarpeGuitarrem

2013-09-05, 04:32 PM

TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life :smallwink:

Bartle

2013-09-05, 04:40 PM

On the contrary, communication scholars have found that there are multiple purposes for communication. "Imparting understanding" is only one of them.I agree, absolutely. I said that it was "the most important (?) purpose" but not the only purpose. That's probably the weakest link in my argument - and it ties into what I mean by "effective" - and I thank you for bringing it up. :smallsmile:

Another very important purpose of communication is to build relationships. One of the ways this occurs is when people in a group or community develop certain "in-group" language. the OotS forums is FILLED with many examples of such communication.Yes.

Some non-TV tropes examples of relationship-building in-group communication used on this forum (all of which would, according to your argument, be "exclusionary" to people unfamiliar with the forum):

OP - Original Poster
RAW - Rules As Written
OtOoPCs, SoD, SS&DT, DCF, NCFtPB, W&XP, DStP - All terms used to refer to the OotS books
Z, V - Abbreviations for Zz'dtri and Vaarsuvius
The Giant - Nickname for the site owner
Tiers - Refers to differences in D&D character power levels
OotSverse - Refers to the "world" the comic takes place in
Ninja'd - When someone posts a similar response to yours right before you

I could go on, but these are a quick sampling off the top of my head.

Some of these terms are used in many other forums (we could call them "forumspeak"). Others are D&D specific. Others are OotS specific. But all are hard to understand to those not familiar with them.Yes, these are all "exclusionary" to some extent, but they all have a tighter tie to the strip, and to forums in general, than trope vocabulary does. Here I can believe that the community-building positive aspect may outweigh the communication-impacting negative aspect.

And yet, you only protest the terms that come from TV tropes?I protest TV Tropes terminology (and trope vocabulary in general) because I believe that the communication-impacting outweighs the community-building. Effectively, a sub-clique has been introduced which no forum reader should justifiably have to join in order to communicate with other members, because trope vocabulary has an extremely tenuous connection to the strip. Your other examples are stronger.

These terms are used to help members of the forum community feel closer to each other. People who read these terms, are first confused, then learn to understand them and use them themselves are going through a relationship-building process that makes them feel more like part of the community. Protesting against their use because "it makes it harder to understand" ignores this community-building aspect of communication.You understand me at this point, but I'll reiterate for completeness: I don't ignore it; I just weigh it against other aspects, and in this case, believe it shouldn't become more important than the other aspects.

SavageWombat

2013-09-05, 04:50 PM

huttj509

2013-09-05, 04:50 PM

Thanks for participating.

I agree, though I do have a bit of trouble with "Idiot Ball". Why a ball and not a stick? Does "ball" have some particular significance that I should be trying to figure out?

My understanding is that it often seems like it gets tossed around from character to character, as the plot decides it needs someone to be an idiot.

I toss balls to people more often than sticks, myself, though passed from person to person could be either.

Bartle

2013-09-05, 04:52 PM

I will say that it can be a fun site, which is cool, I guess.I especially enjoy it when it serves as a mythbusting site. My earliest introduction was "Space is Cold", and it gets nicely geeky discussing why most of the bodily reactions to naked space depicted in film and literature are total overstatements and/or completely wrong. And the links are interesting, too. And the links off those links. And that's why they say it'll ruin your life.

But yeah, you kinda have to see past the in-jokes if you have no desire to become part of that circle.

Bartle

2013-09-05, 05:03 PM

I have always felt that people on this forum use TV Tropes because they enjoy it. They use the jargon, as people do, because it indicates to other Tropers that they are members of the group.

I don't think that those complaining are doing so because they are confused about the concept being discussed - I think they do it because they dislike the website or the people who constantly reference it. I don't complain about people using the word "gish" on D&D fora because I don't know what it means or I'm afraid others won't - I complain about it because I don't like it.A little from Column A, a little from Column B. (Simpsons reference! It was still maybe funny without knowing the reference, wasn't it? I hope? Or at least you understood it?)

I'll be frank. If someone posts "Crowning Moment of Awesome", maybe I mentally roll my eyes a bit, maybe I don't even do that. But if someone posts "Fridge Logic" or "Epileptic Trees", I get annoyed, because I'm being implicitly excluded from the "Troper" group, and though I have no desire to join that group - and don't feel like I should have to - I do like to know what people are talking about. Maybe I can learn something. Maybe I can contribute something. But that person has lost my potential interest in contributing, and I have to ask myself why that person used that phrase. Does he/she enjoy being part of the "Troper" group more than he enjoys contributing, or learning? It would seem so. And I don't like people who enjoy being in groups more than they enjoy being open and having the opportunity to share with the broadest audience possible.

Therefore, I feel that complaining about this issue is bordering on Stop Having Fun, Guys.If you believe what I wrote above, I think you'll know that having fun (and nice trope reference, I appreciate the snark) is not my problem.

Anyway, that's my vote. We are voting, right?I hadn't planned on it, but we can if you like. :smallsmile:

BroomGuys

2013-09-05, 05:06 PM

Anyway, that's my vote. We are voting, right?

Oooh! I vote "meow"!

(I don't know if Mr. Scruffy speaks Common)

Bartle

2013-09-05, 05:10 PM

My understanding is that it often seems like it gets tossed around from character to character, as the plot decides it needs someone to be an idiot.Ah! So this is exactly my point. Let's say you're right.

Maybe Wise Troper says, "Nale just threw Tarquin the Idiot Ball", and that helps me with context. Or maybe Foolish Troper says, "Tarquin's holding the Idiot Ball", and Wise Troper says, "but nobody else was holding it [Nale is dead], so it's really more of an Idiot Anvil", and I'm left wondering why they didn't just say "Tarquin's acting like an idiot" and save everyone a bunch of confusion.

"Community-building" is the working answer, and I believe that. It's still more confusing than it's worth.

erikun

2013-09-05, 05:14 PM

I find that, while TVTropes can be interesting and provide example and reading material on the topic (frequently just examples, though) a lot of times I see the tropes hurting the conversation rather than helping it. That is, rather than claiming something as a Xanatos Gambit and then describing why (complete with examples of how it is or isn't), I find people claim something is a Xanatos Gambit and just leave it at that. "It's listed on the page," as if such things are not open for discussion both on the appropriateness and more in-depth content.

I also see people discuss if a certain character/event should be included in a particular trope, when the answer clearly seems to be a "maybe". Trope categories are, by their nature, rather vague and uncertain, and as such you typically don't see a character who isn't completely two-dimensional fall into the "Magnificent Bastard" category. They may be 90% Magnificent and 50% Bastard. It might be quite interesting to discuss such qualities of such a character. However, rather than talking about those qualities, I see such conversation fall into "Which TVTropes page would this character best fit on?"

[EDIT]

Maybe Wise Troper says, "Nale just threw Tarquin the Idiot Ball", and that helps me with context. Or maybe Foolish Troper says, "Tarquin's holding the Idiot Ball", and Wise Troper says, "but nobody else was holding it [Nale is dead], so it's really more of an Idiot Anvil", and I'm left wondering why they didn't just say "Tarquin's acting like an idiot" and save everyone a bunch of confusion.
The reasoning for that is that "Idiot Ball" has connotations outside just behaving like an idiot. It means a normally smart character behaving like an idiot, behaving unusually out of character for no apparent in-character reasons, and doing so simply to progress the plot.

Tarquin wouldn't be holding the idiot ball when he killed Nale, because there was in-character reason for it. Tarquin wouldn't be holding the idiot ball for attacking the Order of the Stick, because he has some in-character motivation and may secretly be manipulating how things go.

But if Tarquin suddenly had the psion with him follow Elan to go chase after Xykon, this would be an Idiot Ball moment. There is no reason for him to assign a psion to Elan, no reason for the party to assume the psion would help, and Tarquin just left his army stranded in the middle of the desert in doing so. It would be a stupid move for Tarquin, but more importantly, it would be a stupid move that ignores character reasoning or any logic up to that point - that's what the "Idiot Ball" means.

And it would be a bit much to type all that out when trying to discuss it all the time. :smalltongue:

Mx.Silver

2013-09-05, 05:22 PM

Is it trying to be an academic resource? I see this accusation all the time, but given the policies of the cite, I can't see any way you'd get that, unless you think that the only thing you can do with media is academic analysis.

I think the opinion is more that it would be better as an academic resource, rather than rather what it is or was originally intended to be. Not saying that's my opinion, just that seems to be more the gist of these arguments.

KillianHawkeye

2013-09-05, 05:31 PM

Mordar

2013-09-05, 05:44 PM

So, I decide to reply before the quote below, and that has me re-thinking.

And while doing that thinking, it appears Erikun crawled inside my head and photo-copied my thoughts. Now I want to know if Erikun is a train engineer (avatar made me think so) and microscopic cranial photographer...

I had planned to say something along the lines that TVTropes has a bad taste for me because I often saw people linking to a trope instead of contributing to a discussion, or trying to reduce any plot wrinkle, story device or character to a link to TVTropes. With several people it came off as an effort to be snarky or elitist, so I developed a negative connotation.

The frequency of obscure manga or anime names for tropes didn't help that much, particularly when the examples contained several more prominent examples, at least in the English speaking world.

All of that having been said...then came this:

Ah! So this is exactly my point. Let's say you're right.

Maybe Wise Troper says, "Nale just threw Tarquin the Idiot Ball", and that helps me with context. Or maybe Foolish Troper says, "Tarquin's holding the Idiot Ball", and Wise Troper says, "but nobody else was holding it [Nale is dead], so it's really more of an Idiot Anvil", and I'm left wondering why they didn't just say "Tarquin's acting like an idiot" and save everyone a bunch of confusion.

"Community-building" is the working answer, and I believe that. It's still more confusing than it's worth.

There is a significant "meta" difference between "Tarquin was acting like an idiot" and "Tarquin was holding the idiot ball".

While the first allows for an interpretation that suggests Tarquin isn't always an idiot, but this time he acted foolishly, it can as easily be construed to imply Tarquin frequently acts in such a fashion. Now, if we're all perfectly familiar with the strip we know that the statement indicates a fairly unusual, or perhaps even unique situation.

When I hear the second phrase, however, I know that the speaker/writer is implying that Tarquin is acting in a manner incongruous with his normal portrayal and it is being done to advance a scene or plot in a potentially contrived manner, or perhaps foreshadowing something we can not yet know.

Now, the statement immediately above reduces confusion while maintaining the intent and meaning of the point I was trying to make, but compared to "Tarquin was holding the idiot ball", it is fairly dense.

I guess my final point is that there is value in jargon if it isn't overused, the group you're with has a reasonable chance to understand, and it is meant to streamline communication, not imply elitism or attitude.

- M

PS: The ball status is important, as an anvil or stick is not meant to be as easily transmitted to another character when the author so wills it to be...thus I think Idiot Ball is one of the trope names that is logical and where all the words (in this case both the words) have value and meaning for the name.

Bartle

2013-09-05, 05:46 PM

I can see how you might be annoyed at TVTropes as a website, but tropes are a thing that have been around forever and they're not going anywhere anytime soon, so I suggest you just get used to it.

Personally, anytime I can say one word or a single phrase to communicate a large, complex idea, I consider that HELPFUL for communication. Yes, it does require the person I'm communicating with to know the term I am using, but so does any other form of jargon (and jargon is also a thing that is not going away ever).

Sorry I can't be of more help, but trying to stop people from using jargon and technical terms is naught but a fool's errand.It's totally a fool's errand, and I'm sorry I stepped in against my better judgment. But the thought's been rolling around for a long time and wasn't going away.

I'm not actually fighting against tropes or TV Tropes. I'm fighting against:

* the usage of trope jargon
* which is not self-explanatory
* among a group of outsiders
* by a group of insiders
* on a forum
* that is on the internet
* for a webcomic
* drawn in stick-figure style
* set in the D&D universe.

It doesn't get much more foolish than that.

Okay, I'm locking my account. That's a relief.

Open thread, people. Thanks for participating. If someone demolishes my arguments now that I can't defend them, feel free to think I was wrong.

Spoomeister

2013-09-05, 06:08 PM

My $.02, since there's a thread for it here:

I don't care if people want to express glee, consternation or disagreement over various things in OOTS, using TV Tropes vocab.

But I hope they in turn don't care if I am silently and quickly forming a negative impression of them over here on this side of my monitor.

In some cases, used sparingly, or as part of a larger thought, that vocab can be useful, as with any frame of reference. But in most cases, to me, it comes across as juvenile.

Skamandros

2013-09-05, 06:51 PM

Raimun

2013-09-05, 07:01 PM

Well... it depends.

Some TV Tropes-terms people get even if they have never even heard of TV Tropes. Like describing a situation in a tv-series as "Luke, I'm your father." Those are ok.

But describing some character's evil plan as "Xanatos Gambit"? There are two questions that leap to the minds of over 99% of people:
1) Who or what the hell is Xanatos
2) What is the gambit?

Most people don't get stuff like this.

If you really need to use a TV-Tropes-term, provide a link to the correct section of their website.

SavageWombat

2013-09-05, 07:07 PM

But describing some character's evil plan as "Xanatos Gambit"? There are two questions that leap to the minds of over 99% of people:
1) Who or what the hell is Xanatos
2) What is the gambit?

That's an excellent example. TV Tropes has actually renamed a bunch of tropes that no longer make sense to new readers, but the aforementioned phrase (a Gargoyles reference) was so popular with their base that it got grandfathered in.

In other words - they're aware of the problem, and have tried to minimize it, but sometimes it'll still be there.

GoblinArchmage

2013-09-05, 07:08 PM

I think you are vastly mistaken in presuming that it wants to be an academic resource. It's deliberately informal and geeky.

Often times? I would actually say there isn't a direct translation. Or, at least, not one that's succinct. Connotation is a real thing.

Of course, it also depends on the exact words.

Is it trying to be an academic resource? I see this accusation all the time, but given the policies of the cite, I can't see any way you'd get that, unless you think that the only thing you can do with media is academic analysis.

My view is that TVtropes is a fun site, and those decrying it as not being an academic resource are kinda missing the point.

I think you're being a little too hard on TV Tropes. Let me elaborate:

The public wiki thing allows for an enormous amount of manpower; the number of articles on so many different particular works of fiction would be beyond a Herculean effort for a small number of people with a background in literary criticism and cinema studies and the like.
?

This seems to me like a bit of unfair reductionism. People like inside jokes, and we're posting in a different thread about TV Tropes, so the term "internet nerds" is probably one we shouldn't treat as so negative. :smallwink:

Yes, there is a significant lack of analytical depth to TV Tropes articles, but I don't view shallower levels of analysis as quite so utterly worthless.

They picked names they like (whoever "they" are in the first place). Many TV Tropes folks are probably big fans of anime and they find that the name they have best suits the trope (especially if it's a very common trope in anime). To call it by a translated version probably feels lame to big fans of whatever anime the name came from. Anyway, I don't think this is that harmful as long as a proper translation is there at the beginning of the page.

And here seems to be the crux of the matter. I believe TV Tropes describes itself as "a buttload more informal" than Wikipedia, which is also not scholarly. I don't think TV Tropes is supposed to be academic at all; it's just nerd having fun talking about stuff they like on the internet. Feeling a bit of irritation at the fandom is perfectly normal, but I just don't think the site deserves quite as much denouncing as you're giving it.

You are all correct, and I admit that I was overreacting. While I do have issues with the site's unanalytic nature, that in itself really isn't a big deal. I think my reaction was just in response to the few times that I have seen tropers express the opinion that they are being more analytical than they really are. My whole area of study centers to a large extent on criticism and analysis, so I suppose I get a little overly impatient when people engage in more shallow analysis.

I also have a lot of biases against the community thanks to lurking some old mock threads (which had issues of their own) on Something Awful and watching pretty much every episode of "This Troper" (http://www.youtube.com/user/CrazyGoggs) (possibly NSFW, depending on whether you have headphones or not).

Edit: Thankfully, "Troper Tales" doesn't exist anymore.

Baelzar

2013-09-05, 07:27 PM

nyjastul69

2013-09-05, 08:11 PM

KillianHawkeye

2013-09-05, 09:42 PM

I just skip posts that contain trope terminology. I find that the simplest solution.

While it is certainly simple, I would hesitate to agree that it is, in fact, a solution.

Tavar

2013-09-05, 09:44 PM

Do note however that one of those is clear and the other is not. I for one had no idea what fridge logic was. I think I do now though. I just skip posts that contain trope terminology. I find that the simplest solution.

Note that this brings us to the other problem: what's tvtrope-speak, and what's not. Tvtropes uses many terms that originate elsewhere, and have been in active use in at least certain circles for some time. Fridge Logic would seem to fall into the latter category.

nyjastul69

2013-09-05, 09:55 PM

Note that this brings us to the other problem: what's tvtrope-speak, and what's not. Tvtropes uses many terms that originate elsewhere, and have been in active use in at least certain circles for some time. Fridge Logic would seem to fall into the latter category.

Hence why I avoided the term Tvtrope. I wouldn't know what they are.

@KillianHawkeye: I find it a fine solution for myself. No one else needs too. Their solutions are fine too.

Skamandros

2013-09-05, 10:18 PM

Hence why I avoided the term Tvtrope. I wouldn't know what they are.

@KillianHawkeye: I find it a fine solution for myself. No one else needs too. Their solutions are fine too.

You really prefer to spend the rest of your life not reading anything that contains the phrase "fridge logic" rather than read the following four paragraphs?

Half an hour after the show is over, a random viewer is staring into his refrigerator, vaguely bemused by the fact that his six-pack of beer has somehow become a two-pack of beer. Rather than work out how this might have happened, it occurs to him to wonder how in the hell Sydney Bristow went from Hungary to Melbourne, Australia, then to LA, all within 24 hours.

It didn't bother him during the show. It wasn't until he discovered he was running short of beer that it became an issue.

Fridge Logic has been the writer's-room term for these little Internal Consistency issues for a good while, as in "Don't sweat the Fridge Logic, we've got bigger fish to fry. We've only got 20 minutes left to work in three costume changes, a foreign language, and a weird wig." It refers to some illogical or implausible plot point that the audience doesn't realize during the show, but only long afterwards. This naming is highly subjective, since not every person follows the same train of thought. Some people will never even realise there was a problem, while others will call it a Plot Hole, since they already noticed the problem during the show.

The phrase was technically coined by Alfred Hitchcock. When asked about the scene in Vertigo when Madeleine mysteriously, and impossibly, disappears from the hotel that Scottie saw her in, he responded by calling it an "icebox" scene, that is, a scene that "hits you after you've gone home and start pulling cold chicken out of the icebox."

Tavar

2013-09-05, 10:26 PM

Hence why I avoided the term Tvtrope. I wouldn't know what they are.

@KillianHawkeye: I find it a fine solution for myself. No one else needs too. Their solutions are fine too.

So your solution is to ignore anything if you don't know the words?

nyjastul69

2013-09-05, 10:27 PM

You really prefer to spend the rest of your life not reading anything that contains the phrase "fridge logic" rather than read the following four paragraphs?

It would not bother me to do so. Also, I should clarify, I only skip the bits of the post with those types of references. I'll usually read the other bits. I phrased that pretty poorly, sorry.

Tavar

2013-09-05, 10:34 PM

It would not bother me to do so. Also, I should clarify, I only skip the bits of the post with those types of references. I'll usually read the other bits. I phrased that pretty poorly, sorry.

How do you know the references, though? I mean, you're basically saying that if someone is using proper terminology, or words that you don't know, you're just going to ignore what they say. You can certainly do that, but it's certainly an odd position.

lared

2013-09-05, 10:42 PM

If people want to use special, exclusionary terminology, they can, and they might even be somewhat vindicated later. But right now, it's a small convenience to one part of the audience, at a loss of understanding to another part of the audience. I argue that the highest purpose of communicating is helping your audience understand, and it trumps all (?) other considerations.

*Shrug.* I don't see what the big deal is, every time I come across a trope I'm unfamiliar with I can just go look it up.

"Tarquin picked up an idiot ball" conveys more information than "Tarquin is acting like an idiot." If I wanted to express the same entire idea encompassed in "idiot ball" I would need to say "Tarquin is now acting like an idiot, in contrast to his previous characterization, because this is the behavior required to move the plot forward. He is now doing so in part because there are presently no other characters available to advance the plot by acting similarly stupid. This sort of development is a common narrative device." (Note that I don't agree with this particular reading of Tarquin's character and am merely using this as an example definition.)

Shorthand and jargon emerges for a reason, and trope-jargon is both very useful when discussing narrative works and far more accessible than most of the alternatives, as anyone who's taken an upper-div Comp Lit course can tell you. This is speaking as someone who is not a "trope-er" or whatever, just someone who's clicked through the site a few times.

I really shouldn't be spending time on this, but in for a dime, in for a dollar.

I've never encountered this expression before and while its basic meaning is clear in context, it's also safe to say that as an expression it has richer connotations I'm not fully aware of unless I were to look it up somehow.

nyjastul69

2013-09-05, 10:51 PM

How do you know the references, though? I mean, you're basically saying that if someone is using proper terminology, or words that you don't know, you're just going to ignore what they say. You can certainly do that, but it's certainly an odd position.

Knowing that it's a trope type reference is much different than knowing the actual reference. Trope references sorta stick out. I just don't really care to look them up. I just move along. I guess it could be seen as odd. I don't think it is though.

Tavar

2013-09-05, 11:08 PM

Knowing that it's a trope type reference is much different than knowing the actual reference. Trope references sorta stick out. I just don't really care to look them up. I just move along. I guess it could be seen as odd. I don't think it is though.

If it's a link to a TVtropes page, I could agree with you. Otherwise, I can't really see a way to differentiate between tvtrope terms and general terms. Especially since, as I said before, most Tvtrope terms are actually terms from other sources, simply cataloged. So, just ignoring Tvtrope-created terms? If possible, that's understandable. The only way I can see what you describe working is to ignore all unfamiliar terms, though.

Impnemo

2013-09-05, 11:14 PM

If people want to use special, exclusionary terminology, they can, and they might even be somewhat vindicated later. But right now, it's a small convenience to one part of the audience, at a loss of understanding to another part of the audience. I argue that the highest purpose of communicating is helping your audience understand, and it trumps all (?) other considerations.

Ahem...

$33 5P07 rU|\|. rU|\| 5P07 rU|\|. 1Ph 7|-|3 0|\|L'/ pURP053 0Ph (0/\/\/\/\U|\|1(471|\|9 15 70 |-|3LP 7|-|3 r3(1P13|\|7 U|\|D3R574|\|D 4|\|D 1Ph 7|-|@ (4|\| 0|\|L'/ b3 4LL0\/\/3D U51|\|9 7|-|3 51/\/\PL357, /\/\057 (0/\/\/\/\0|\| 4|\|D b451( L3\/3L 0Ph L4|\|9U493 p0551BL3 7|-|3|\| \/\/3 \/\/0ULD 571LL b3 L177L3 /\/\0R3 7|-|4|\| bL3471|\|9 4|\|1/\/\4L5. pH0R937 |-|19|-|3R |\|4RR471\/3 0R L091(4L (0|\|57RU(75, \/\/3 \/\/0ULD|\|7 b3 (4P4BL3 0Ph (R4\/\/L1|\|9 0U7 0Ph pL470'5 (4\/3. d0|\|7 d3/\/\4|\|D 7|-|3 (0|\|\/3R54710|\| b3 bR0U9|-|7 d0\/\/|\| 70 j00Z, 1|\|\/357 50/\/\3 71/\/\3 4|\|D L34R|\| 50/\/\37|-|1|\|9. 4|\|D |-|4\/1|\|9 4R9U3D Ph0R 7|-|15 L0|\|9, d0|\|7 7R'/ 4|\|D 54'/ 7|-|475 700 /\/\U(|-| 4 d3/\/\4|\|D. U71L1Z1|\|9 4 p|-|R453 1|\| (0/\/\/\/\0|\| U53, \/\/|-|053 d3Ph1|\|1710|\| (4|\| b3 L34R|\|3D 4|\|D 4((3553D r34D1L'/, 5\/\/1Ph7L'/, 4|\|D 3451L'/ 15 7|-|3 4|\|717|-|3515 0Ph 3><(LU510|\|4R'/ 3L1715/\/\.

Or in plain english:

See spot run. Run spot run. If the only purpose of communicating is to help the recipient understand and if that can only be allowed using the simplest, most common and basic level of language possible then we would still be little more than bleating animals. Forget higher narrative or logical constructs, we wouldnt be capable of crawling out of plato's cave. Dont demand the conversation be brought down to you, invest some time and learn something. And having argued for this long, dont try and say thats too much a demand.

Utilizing a phrase in common use, whose definition can be learned and accessed readily, swiftly, and easily is the antithesis of exclusionary elitism.

Unlike say, |337. Or demanding everyone else use only your own approved list of phrases and terminology

LadyEowyn

2013-09-05, 11:19 PM

Ah! But the inside jokes are self-contained as part of the comic. You read the comic, you get the jokes. Trope vocabulary, though, has *no* special relationship to the comic, and shouldn't be required reading for someone who values effective communication. (As an aside, I believe that a lot of people who throw around trope vocabulary *are* using it to be exclusionary, but I'm not arguing it... just that it *is* exclusionary, in practice.)

The inside jokes aren't always related to the comics. So far the comic has made one-off references X-Men , Final Fantasy [I didn't get that one - I think that's what Elan's costume trying to sneak onto the zeppelin was, based on forum discussion], Firefly [reason for Capt. Scoundrel's attire], Dune, and that's just a couple I remembered off the top of my head. Its references are fairly all-purpose geekiness, as is TvTropes.

And the most common tropes being thrown around recently (re: Tarquin) are Genre Savvy and Wrong Genre Savvy, which are some more of the self-explanatory ones. It's simply easier and more concise than saying "Tarquin a character who understands that he's in a specific kind of heroic fantasy story" or "Tarquin's the type of character that thinks he understands the kind of story he's in, but he's wrong".

EDIT: However, saying "Hey, I didn't realize this before, but x event in the comic doesn't really make sense for y reason" is more comprehensible to the average person than "Fridge Logic", so it varies case-to-case.

Anyway, we all have our pet peeves around communication, but I think mentioning tropes is [I]far, far less annoying than certain forum members' determination to render their posts nigh-unreadable through their refusal to use proper spelling and capitalization, and I manage to grit my teeth and put up with that.

SiuiS

2013-09-05, 11:29 PM

The problem is when a method of communication becomes an empty set of buzzwords.

Tropers often drop a trope name as if that is an explanation. That's dumb. You cannot end a discussion by saying "Obviously, he's just a magnificent bastard with a heart of gold" or something. You have to explain it, and or be willing to say how it correlates to the discussion. This maddens me to no end; saying a few words you learned from a website do not clarify anything.

The reverse, those who use TVTropes but don't treat it as a complete language, are actually really effective communicators. These are the ones you don't usually notice doing it.

Communication is what you say, how you say it, what others hear and how they hear it. "Tropers", in the unfair and biased sense of people who drop trope names like they have intrinsic value, screw up #2 and don't bother helping with #4. That's poor form, no matter who and what you are. The best thing to do is to point this out politely, and try to work them into explaining, though. Making it an ideological battle will go nowhere; you'll end up nitpicking sentences without touching conversational substance, and either be forced to look dumb or admit that they have a valid method of living and you don't have any right to critique them, since you aren't open for critique, etc.

Tropers who don't do this are generally much more reasonable, though, and will often slowly convert you. Some things are just that omniapplicable, like being Worf'd, or having a strong guy beaten up all the damn time to prove the villains are, like, totally strong (and thereby undermining the strength of the main guy). Tropes are memetic.

jere7my

2013-09-05, 11:41 PM

Seriously? Just think of it as a compression algorithm. I can say "Plot holes you don't notice until later, perhaps when you are standing in front of the open refrigerator, staring at nothing, body shifted to neutral, brain begins to free associate and WAIT A MINUTE?! WHY WOULD THEY TAKE THEIR HELMETS OFF ON AN ALIEN PLANET LIKE THAT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!"

Or, I could say "Fridge Logic."

THAT'S what fridge logic is? I thought it had something to do with killing girlfriends as cheap motivation for superheroes.

Count me as someone who's mildly irked by Television Tropes. It encourages shallow analysis by giving people narrowly defined, overly specific bins that they think they can shove any story element into, however subtle and unique and thought-provoking it is. It reduces storytelling to a jigsaw puzzle. Jargon can be useful—heck, "tragedy" and "foreshadowing" and "framing" are all jargon—but too often I see people use Television Tropes as a substitute for specific analysis.

And it does strike me as exclusionary in a minor way, a smug way of marking an "in crowd." If a large minority of, say, Juggalos arrived at the OotS forums and began filling a noticeable fraction of posts with inscrutable ICP jargon, then responded to any complaints with a link to the Official ICP Glossary of Terms, I think other posters here could reasonably complain that the Juggalos were not being very community-minded. (Shocking, I know.)

D&D jargon is inherent to the comic; forum jargon is inherent to internet fora; Television Tropes are only meaningful to fans of the Television Tropes website. Unlike "tragedy" and "foreshadowing", Television Tropes terms are sufficiently narrow in audience to be, at best, confusing and, at worst, actively offputting.

That said, this entire discussion is a perfect example of the Ford's Innaccurate Grape Sauce Fallacy.

SiuiS

2013-09-06, 12:28 AM

Groovy? What's that mean? It's got ruts? It's corrugated? The Beatles are corrugated? EXCLUSIONARY!

Why do people call each other "dog?" What's up dog? Your friend is a drooler? He eats poop? ELITIST!

There's a sucker born every minute? He barfed, puked, spewed? I CAN'T UNDERSTAND ANYBODY ANYMORE

I laugh, excuse this is an actual problem. I have a friend who says cobblers and means testicles as a derisive expletive, for example. So how does pointin out a problem disprove a problem?

Seriously? Just think of it as a compression algorithm. I can say "Plot holes you don't notice until later, perhaps when you are standing in front of the open refrigerator, staring at nothing, body shifted to neutral, brain begins to free associate and WAIT A MINUTE?! WHY WOULD THEY TAKE THEIR HELMETS OFF ON AN ALIEN PLANET LIKE THAT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!"

Or, I could say "Fridge Logic."

Except wen you say fridge logic, and no one gets it.
"You know, fridge logic."
"No, I don't know. What?"
"It's a trope, for when stuff doesn't make sense."
Then, why fridge logic?"
"It's the kind of thing that you don't notice until later. Like, you're making dinner, and you reach into the fridge casually for milk, and you think 'wait, that didn't make any sense'"
"Why didn't you just say that? We call those 'lightbulb moments' in the real world"

Is a much longer conversation full o assumptions and, often, entitlement and hurt feelings, when the point of tropes – communication – would just be explaining the term first off so you now share a vocal repertoire.

What is this fallacy of grapes and such?

lared

2013-09-06, 12:34 AM

Except wen you say fridge logic, and no one gets it.
"You know, fridge logic."
"No, I don't know. What?"
"It's a trope, for when stuff doesn't make sense."
Then, why fridge logic?"
"It's the kind of thing that you don't notice until later. Like, you're making dinner, and you reach into the fridge casually for milk, and you think 'wait, that didn't make any sense'"
"Why didn't you just say that? We call those 'lightbulb moments' in the real world"

"lightbulb moments" in not synonymous with fridge logic, because fridge logic describes the event/story element that *causes* the audience's later lightbulb moment. You can't parse a sentence wherein the *work of art itself* is experiencing a lightbulb moment.

"Lightbulb moment" itself is also a much broader idea, and when communicating, it's often preferable to communicate with precision.

THAT'S what fridge logic is? I thought it had something to do with killing girlfriends as cheap motivation for superheroes.

That's "women in refrigerators" which actually comes from a very influential essay about the treatment of women in comics, not TVtropes. But it's another good example of how jargon will always emerge organically, and if it's a useful term, it will stick with people who are dedicated to a certain subject (in the case of TVtropes, discussing narratives), because "to put in the fridge" is does get tossed around a lot as a shorthand reference to this esasy. Another example of a non-TVtope trope is "Manic Pixie Dream Girl," which, again, comes from an influential review of the movie Elizabethtown (IIRC) and again, is such a useful piece of jargon that it's in common currency in discussion of romantic narratives.

This also speaks to the side discussion some people are having in this thread about whether or not it's reasonable to have a specific animus to TVtropes and avoid just TVtropes while accepting jargon that emerges from other sources. I'd argue that if you came across the term "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" for the first time you'd have no idea whether that's an allusion to a highly influential professional critic's movie review or a page on TVtropes. (Of course, it has its own trope page now, which, unsurprisingly, is a much better introduction to the concept than the movie review from which the term originated.)

Knaight

2013-09-06, 01:13 AM

Do note however that one of those is clear and the other is not. I for one had no idea what fridge logic was. I think I do now though. I just skip posts that contain trope terminology. I find that the simplest solution.

Sure, but the same could be said about any of the other idiomatic expressions listed -or rather, it could have, prior to them gaining popularity- in comparison to the extended description that they convey. For that matter, it could have been said about anything on this (http://www.idiomsite.com/) rather long list. Yet those are useful, precisely because explanations of both denotations and connotations take up much more space and likely lack in style. Language changes, and the creation of idiomatic expressions which are initially obtuse and have to be learned is part of that as is those same expressions falling into disuse. Some of these are going to be specific in a topic, and plenty of those that emerge will never really reach popularity and will subsequently fail to exist.

TV tropes is, among other things, an engine for creating idiomatic expressions that enrich the lexicons of those that employ them. Plenty of the ones it creates aren't very good, and probably won't last long, others might have some life in them. This can certainly get old, largely due to the inferior set of expressions, but the creation of a few good ones is useful. Moreover, because all idiomatic expressions have to be learned, and do grow out of very little complaining about them on the basis of them not being popular yet is somewhat questionable.

Skamandros

2013-09-06, 01:23 AM

THAT'S what fridge logic is? I thought it had something to do with killing girlfriends as cheap motivation for superheroes.

If only there was a website devoted to sorting this stuff out and explaining it to people.

Khatoblepas

2013-09-06, 01:27 AM

That said, this entire discussion is a perfect example of the Ford's Innaccurate Grape Sauce Fallacy.

Well, if you're going to talk in constructed, rootless metaphors:

Anteknowwise, fictal mechwise spokelang whiffmark - umbra spokelang many plantful not mechwise, mechwise spokelang menpartwise - mechwise spokelang groundbranchless!

Querythought - "TVTropes" antemenpart? Chainful wordspeak manygift reflectwise highmenspeak, suchwise godmenspeak use many deadlang! Deadlang, menpart. Widelang, Menjoin! Only deadlang, locklang, unknowlang menpart. Plantful growwise spokelang many deadleafs. Deadleaf, not deadtree! A Spokelangful strongfultree still deadleafs! Mechwise locklang mindwoundful and menpart.

Got it?

Aquillion

2013-09-06, 01:28 AM

I think the biggest problem caused by TVtropes is the desire people have to square-peg-round-trope things they see into TVtropes terms. This doesn't originate with TVtropes; you can see it in the desire people have to categorize any character they dislike as a Mary Sue, or the way people on TVtropes itself will constantly try to associate things with Diskworld or whatever the most popular recent anime is or things along that line (claiming that anyone who uses a phrase that appears in it is making a reference -- everyone who says they're not dead is Granny Weatherwax, every drill is a reference to TTGL, etc.)

I believe this is because geeks in particular crave affirmation for the things they like, because they encountered a lot of people dismissing their favorite things when they were growing up (or something of that nature.) This is also why some people on TVtropes become so defensive about the more obscure and confusing trope names -- it serves a double purpose. First, seeing eg. Xanatos Gambit used everywhere affirms to people who liked the show it was from that their show is "big" and important and significant rather than just another forgettable Saturday morning cartoon that happened to hit at an age of their life that they're nostalgic for.

Ssecond, after a certain critical mass, it becomes a cultural / tribal signifier for TVtropes itself. They don't want it to be accessible, because if tropes all had easy to grasp names, then membership in the TVtropes tribe wouldn't have any meaning.

But these things also lead people to try and force everything they read or watch into TVtropes categories, both in order to play up the importance of TVtropes (which they like) and the subject they're watching (because describing it in TVtropes terms connects it to this constellation of larger media.)

The absolute worst part of it is when readers assume that writers are deliberately referencing tropes, because that strips away the meaning completely and reduces everything to repetitive self-aware dreck. Jokes like that aren't automatically terrible, no, but if you start interpreting the core plot or characters that way, you've probably lost sight of what they were actually saying.

jere7my

2013-09-06, 01:30 AM

If only there was a website devoted to sorting this stuff out and explaining it to people.

If only it were possible to have internet discussions without a smug clique insisting everyone read their in-joke translator to be able to follow along. Really, it's a perfect example of The Frog Always Needs a Pepsi.

jere7my

2013-09-06, 01:32 AM

Well, if you're going to talk in constructed, rootless metaphors:

Anteknowwise, fictal mechwise spokelang whiffmark - umbra spokelang many plantful not mechwise, mechwise spokelang menpartwise - mechwise spokelang groundbranchless!

Querythought - "TVTropes" antemenpart? Chainful wordspeak manygift reflectwise highmenspeak, suchwise godmenspeak use many deadlang! Deadlang, menpart. Widelang, Menjoin! Only deadlang, locklang, unknowlang menpart. Plantful growwise spokelang many deadleafs. Deadleaf, not deadtree! A Spokelangful strongfultree still deadleafs! Mechwise locklang mindwoundful and menpart.

Got it?

Now, Uncleftish Beholding I grok.

The Rose Dragon

2013-09-06, 02:04 AM

It's actually weird, since a lot of the complaints about accessibility are things TV Tropes is internally moving away from. Few references to particular works or characters are kept as page titles unless they are old and common enough to be grandfathered in (or actual industry terms), simply using a page title as shorthand for the entire situation is frowned upon, and in-jokes are either kept to Your Milege Might Vary and Trivia pages or swiftly removed.

Of course, progress is slow. I know that Trope Repair Shop can be so backed up it can take three to five months just to start a new thread at times. And it is still a public wiki that anyone can edit, so quality of individual examples can vary wildly, but I know people wildly refreshing the latest updates page to make sure nothing horribly out of place happens.

The problem is, while TV Tropes has standards, they are all internal to the wiki - not even the forums (outside of threads actually pertaining to the wiki) are safe from misuse, which have a whole different set of standards. As such, no matter what it does to keep editors and individual edits from getting out of hand, it can't exactly stop other people from abusing it to create a new pidgin.

SiuiS

2013-09-06, 02:21 AM

"lightbulb moments" in not synonymous with fridge logic

I am aware. I was not one of those fictional two people in the dialogue.

If only there was a website devoted to sorting this stuff out and explaining it to people.

That didn't have a reputation of being flung around like a bludgeon to excuse character from dialogue. I know, right? That would be great!

Unfortunately, such a website currently only exists with the popular notion that it will ruin your life and grammar, as those who go there take joy in proving it while cackling, creating a social divide based on a misunderstand both sides want the other to apologize for. Rather unfortunate, non?

I think the biggest problem caused by TVtropes is the desire people have to square-peg-round-trope things they see into TVtropes terms.

Masterfully done!

The problem is not with TVTropes.com and the Television tropes and idioms website. It is with how a majority (seemingly, this is anecdotal) use that information. And unfortunately, a purely intellectual tool cannot be separated easily from its use.

Raimun

2013-09-06, 06:55 AM

KillianHawkeye

2013-09-06, 07:15 AM

Knowing that it's a trope type reference is much different than knowing the actual reference. Trope references sorta stick out. I just don't really care to look them up. I just move along. I guess it could be seen as odd. I don't think it is though.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that ignoring a problem is kind of the opposite of solving it.

FLHerne

2013-09-06, 08:55 AM

Tyndmyr

2013-09-06, 09:14 AM

So your solution is to ignore anything if you don't know the words?

Yeah, nobody does that. Why, just today, I saw a webpage in Japanese. Obviously, instead of hitting back, I must now spend a year or two learning Japanese.

Some tropes don't bother me. Some do. Clear abbreviations of common terms? Legit. This happens all throughout language. I see "genre savvy" and I understand, because the words explain it. Some, though, like the already mentioned "crowning moment of awesome"...seriously? Was it so hard to say "x was awesome"? You are not making the conversation more precise, you're not shortening it...it serves no useful purpose.

And don't get me started on the people that just drop several links to obscure tropes in lieu of actually typing words. Yes, congrats, you found the hole the peg fits into. We're having a conversation, not playing a matching game.

The Rose Dragon

2013-09-06, 09:26 AM

YSome, though, like the already mentioned "crowning moment of awesome"...seriously? Was it so hard to say "x was awesome"?

Misuse of "Crowning Moment of Awesome" is the reason why it is neither a trope (it is a YMMV item, and on the Sugar Wiki, no less) nor has that primary title (instead having the primary title of Awesome Moments, with Crowning Moment of Awesome redirecting to it). Specifically, the original use of Crowning Moment of Awesome focused on "crowning", and was supposed to be the peak of awesome moments in the series or work. When people disagreed on which moment of awesome was the crowning one (pretty much all the time), it stopped being crowning.

razark

2013-09-06, 09:36 AM

Using trope terms can be useful. What annoys me is talking to someone that can't discuss something without using them. I know one guy that will just throw out a seemingly endless stream of tropes. And it's not limited to discussions of media. He treats reality the same way. If it's not tropes, it's endlessly comparing everything to movies. Describe someone to him, and he will respond with "Oh, it's like person in movie." Tell him a series of events, and he says "That's from movie."

Use the terms when appropriate. But endlessly compare everything to media, and conversation becomes tedious.

Tavar

2013-09-06, 09:51 AM

Yeah, nobody does that. Why, just today, I saw a webpage in Japanese. Obviously, instead of hitting back, I must now spend a year or two learning Japanese.
Just a basic Stawman? Come on, give it your A-game here! Maybe imply a link to Nazis, or something. Really try to lessen the conversation.

Some tropes don't bother me. Some do. Clear abbreviations of common terms? Legit. This happens all throughout language. I see "genre savvy" and I understand, because the words explain it. Some, though, like the already mentioned "crowning moment of awesome"...seriously? Was it so hard to say "x was awesome"? You are not making the conversation more precise, you're not shortening it...it serves no useful purpose.
Crowning moment of awesome would actually be the most awesome moment in the whole series, which is obvious if you look at the words.

Raimun

2013-09-06, 10:13 AM

Crowning moment of awesome would actually be the most awesome moment in the whole series, which is obvious if you look at the words.

Ugh... I always hated that trope name. Not only does it sound contrived and needlessly complicated but the definition of the trope is problematic too.

I mean, what is the most awesome moment of any given series (/film/book/whatever)? That move someone pulled at the final showdown? That bit of dialogue that was the culminating point? Was it at the beginning of the series when everything was still new, fresh and mysterious? At the middle part when the stakes were known and it was officially "on"? At the end when the hero of the story resolves everything?

Everyone has a different opinion of what was the most awesome moment, so this doesn't really sound like a trope to me.

Marlowe

2013-09-06, 10:16 AM

Well, I can't say as I'm impressed by the OP introducing this discussion in a tone that suggests he doesn't think defending his "argument" is worth his time. Nor by his constant double-triple posting.

The OP's argument his essentially "Using expressions that I, and I personally, do not understand and can't be bothered to look up using an easily available source is bad communication".

Well, I'm sorry. English is a metaphoric language and in both written and spoken form tends to be full of figures of speech, regional colloquialisms, literary or film references, Metaphors (obviously) and the like. All of which might be called "elitist" or "poor communication" in that they might require some grasp of cultural context to understand. English has been like this since people had to carve it into rocks.

TvTropes references are just a recent form of this, and far more penetrable and accessable than some.

Oh, and by the way; English borrows terms from other languages if an existing term doesn't fit the bill precisely. Complain about Tvtrope names that are Japanese? Do you complain about the word "Tsunami"? How about "Kindergarten?". That's not English either.

Anyway, if you want to talk to people that only use the literal English, using their own constructions, without any knowledge or "elitist" assumption of familiarity with the underlying culture; here's a simple answer.

Come live where I live.

The Rose Dragon

2013-09-06, 10:16 AM

Everyone has a different opinion of what was the most awesome moment, so this doesn't really sound like a trope to me.

Hence why it was renamed and not a trope to begin with.

Goosefeather

2013-09-06, 11:21 AM

I laugh, excuse this is an actual problem. I have a friend who says cobblers and means testicles as a derisive expletive, for example. So how does pointin out a problem disprove a problem?

Wait, linguistic heterogeneity is a "problem" now? I don't even know where to start with that one.

'Cobblers' is Cockney rhyming slang, fyi, from "cobblers' awls = balls" - it's pretty widely used throughout the UK to mean 'nonsense', 'rubbish'. The fact that you, personally, are not terribly well-acquainted with this usage does not invalidate it or make it a "problem".

Should we be working to eliminate all dialect, sociolect, idiolect, neologism, slang, jargon, foreign loanwords and linguistic variation in general, and all restrict our lexical choices to one flatly homogeneous pool of terminology? How dull...

jidasfire

2013-09-06, 11:23 AM

The website itself is kind of fun, for the fact that it calls attention to certain aspects of fiction, is a source of rather large amounts of information on media, and, for me, it has actually turned me onto works I may never have heard of without it. It can be entertaining, and it can be a serious time sink.

That said, my problem is less with the site than with the people who seem increasingly unable to speak without using it to refer to everything, which is frustratingly prevalent. I'll second the idea that it can be used to stifle original thinking, create a false sense of knowledge about a subject, often giving the user a sense that they know it all because they can break any story down into tropes. It is a shallow substitute for actual critical analysis, making conversations frustrating, because nothing new is being said. I mean, I personally find it much more annoying to hear someone say, "The Badass Longcoat had a Big Damn Heroes moment and stopped the Magnificent Bastard's Xanatos Gambit" than simply saying the hero defeated the villain. Finally, and this may not have ever happened, but I would despair of a world where stories were designed simply by slapping tropes together.

Again, I'm not saying TVTropes can never be useful, and it can certainly be fun, but stories, as I recall someone saying around here once, don't fit into neat little boxes, and in my opinion, trying to shoehorn them as such is doing a disservice to their creators and the works themselves.

Marlowe

2013-09-06, 11:45 AM

"The Badass Longcoat had a Big Damn Heroes moment and stopped the Magnificent Bastard's Xanatos Gambit"

By definition, you can't stop a Xanatos Gambit. Since its definition is a plan where all possibly outcomes work in the gambiteer's favour, albeit in different ways.

Again, I'm not saying TVTropes can never be useful, and it can certainly be fun, but stories, as I recall someone saying around here once, don't fit into neat little boxes, and in my opinion, trying to shoehorn them as such is doing a disservice to their creators and the works themselves.

Stories don't fit into nice little boxes, and the site in question has never claimed that. What it is about is common elements between stories, which invites the reader to compare and contrast what might seem to be wildly different works.

SiuiS

2013-09-06, 12:06 PM

I don't see anything wrong with using well-known and/or self-explanatory trope names to describe concepts that would need a full sentence otherwise, the aforementioned Idiot Ball being a reasonable example.
"has the Idiot Ball" is much more tidy than "is being less intelligent and/or perceptive than normal because the plot requires someone to act non-optimally".

Of course, the trope references pile up around Tarquin far more than most other characters, because he believes that the world revolves around literary cliches (i.e. tropes) and goes out of his way to make himself and those around him into literal embodiments of certain tropes. :smalltongue:

People call Tarquin a 'Card-Carrying Villain', his schemes 'Xanatos Gambits', and so on because the character actively attempts to act according to the tropes that those names have been applied to.

The problem is more idioms and non-tropes which still make it into the site and then common vernacular, I find.

Yeah, nobody does that. Why, just today, I saw a webpage in Japanese. Obviously, instead of hitting back, I must now spend a year or two learning Japanese.

Some tropes don't bother me. Some do. Clear abbreviations of common terms? Legit. This happens all throughout language. I see "genre savvy" and I understand, because the words explain it. Some, though, like the already mentioned "crowning moment of awesome"...seriously? Was it so hard to say "x was awesome"? You are not making the conversation more precise, you're not shortening it...it serves no useful purpose.

And don't get me started on the people that just drop several links to obscure tropes in lieu of actually typing words. Yes, congrats, you found the hole the peg fits into. We're having a conversation, not playing a matching game.

... Marry me?

Crowning moment of awesome would actually be the most awesome moment in the whole series, which is obvious if you look at the words.

The fact that its so over-used that this isn't apparent despite the name is perhaps symptomatic?

Wait, linguistic heterogeneity is a "problem" now? I don't even know where to start with that one.

The same place you start with all misunderstandings, obviously.

"People using vastly different words and being unwilling to explain them is a problem?" Yes. Yes it is. For communication, at least. The beauty of language is in the tension between growth and utility. This means that there will be tension between growth (change) and utility (standards), however.

'Cobblers' is Cockney rhyming slang, fyi, from "cobblers' awls = balls" - it's pretty widely used throughout the UK to mean 'nonsense', 'rubbish'. The fact that you, personally, are not terribly well-acquainted with this usage does not invalidate it or make it a "problem".

That's nice. Equally true is the fact that you, personally knowing it, does not make it any easier for the American, Canadian, Chinese, Korean, Australian and South American people I know who had no idea what it meant.

"My country is bigger than you alone", "my continent is bigger than your country" and all that. It's a losing game, though, because it doesn't matter. No amount of indignation will make a conversation better. This isn't me, personally offended because a friend in Derby says something. This is me making an objective observation. See how that works?

Should we be working to eliminate all dialect, sociolect, idiolect, neologism, slang, jargon, foreign loanwords and linguistic variation in general, and all restrict our lexical choices to one flatly homogeneous pool of terminology? How dull...

Probably! I mean, I spoke clear English without all that, and you still managed to mangle the message, fill it full of straw and snipe at it! :smallwink:

Marlowe

2013-09-06, 12:22 PM

Really? As in you couldn't figure out what "cobblers" meant, purely from context?

You must have had a fun time with "Jabberwocky".

jere7my

2013-09-06, 12:38 PM

Really? As in you couldn't figure out what "cobblers" meant, purely from context?

You must have had a fun time with "Jabberwocky".

Now you're just being an example of Eggs? Then What Will We Do Until the Butler Gets Here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP73airYF-E)

Marlowe

2013-09-06, 12:44 PM

Now that's just being (Unintentionally) cheap. I can't view that site in this country.

EDIT: To clarify; I've heard "cobblers" for years. Without any idea it was Cockney rhyming slang. And I never had any problem figuring out the meaning; even if I don't use the word myself.

And "Jabberwocky" is a Lewis Carrol poem, made up of nonsense nouns and verbs, that's entirely comprehensible because of the context in which they're used. And I'm pretty sure you could find the whole text if you made a single search.

jere7my

2013-09-06, 12:48 PM

Now that's just being (Unintentionally) cheap. I can't view that site in this country.

Oops, sorry. I would say you were missing out on an insightful and urbane contribution to this debate, but I don't think I could keep a straight face.

Khatoblepas

2013-09-06, 12:53 PM

Unyes, think doubleplusungood.

I'll translate:

Anteknowwise, fictal mechwise spokelang whiffmark - umbra spokelang many plantful not mechwise, mechwise spokelang menpartwise - mechwise spokelang groundbranchless!

Querythought - "TVTropes" antemenpart? Chainful wordspeak manygift reflectwise highmenspeak, suchwise godmenspeak use many deadlang! Deadlang, menpart. Widelang, Menjoin! Only deadlang, locklang, unknowlang menpart. Plantful growwise spokelang many deadleafs. Deadleaf, not deadtree! A Spokelangful strongfultree still deadleafs! Mechwise locklang mindwoundful and menpart.

As you know, your use of fictional constructed language misses the point - obscure, but organic language is not arbitrarily constructed. These constructed languages* have no roots.

A question, then, is "TVTropes" excluding you? Linking their words in a convenient place is generous compared to the language of the elite - such as how the religious establishment used Latin in their writing instead of English, which the common folk understood. Using an obscure language that people wouldn't have the opportunity to learn is exclusionary. Using an open language that is simple to understand is not exclusionary. Using obscure, dead languages, cants and codewords is exclusionary. On another note, an organic language has many linguistic dead-ends, even in real languages - so there are names that grate on you, often those are replaced and refined as people find more suitable names for it. Language is not a set thing unless it dies, and the jargon used by TV Tropes is far from dead. Using arbitrary and nonsensical terms that mean nothing is counterproductive, since every trope, no matter how obscure, has an etymology.

*I am not, of course, talking about linguistics fans who make their own languages, rather a Thieves' Cant, or similar - where the intention is to obfuscate your language, rather than illuminate concepts.

--

Now, I don't read TVTropes as a habit, but I do not find the concept of trope naming abhorrent. Rather, it is the slang of some part of the internet, and for the most part, it is self evident. The obscure terms, such as Xanatos Gambit, require a little work to understand why they mean what they do, but they do make sense. And it's interesting, from a media standpoint, to find out about new things like this. It can only make us richer, culturally, to know all of these things. That, and "Xanatos Gambit" is a way cooler term than "Master plan that shouldn't succeed but the villain is a mastermind who figured out all the angles in advance.". And Xanatos sounds like the kind of name that would do that.

Slang is not universal, but it is carried by osmosis and memetic evolution. If someone finds it easier to express a concept with a label, rather than writing the concept longhand, then that's what they'll do. Like Money ("an arbitrary thing that you give to someone to buy goods with instead of bartering"), or Capitalism ("an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy.") and if it's convenient for them, and not convenient for you, would you deny them their tools of communication? Surely you yourself have your own slang and your own shorthand for words - ones you don't even think about when you use them.

You do not have to use the words yourself, and using them on their own with no discussion is poor discussion of the media at hand, but no different from stating the obvious is. The use of them is not inherently bad. There would be people stating the obvious even if they didn't have the linguistic tools to explain media concepts in shorthand. They'd just do it in more words.

In any discussion, it is preferable to have a good knowledge of the constituent parts of what you're talking about. If an animator didn't know what the terms "easing" "spacing" "timing", "On twos", "roughing", "cleanup", etc were, they would be very ill-equipped to talk about animation, even if they had a perfect grasp of the english language otherwise. Likewise, without at least passing knowledge of the constituent parts of media, and the language to say it with any expediency, discussion would be very awkward and take about three times as long. TVTropes contains a lot of things that I wouldn't use, and heck, I wouldn't make a habit of using JUST them. But if I needed to, say, identify a Xanatos Gambit or a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, or a Tsundere, I'd use those terms.

So is using TVTropes exclusionary? No. It is quite inclusionary, compared to a lot of industry jargon. If you asked what something was in a professional setting, you'll get a lot of funny looks and no answers. If you ask what the trope name they used means, they would link you to it and you'd understand the wider context.

If your problem is with exclusionary language, then you are really missing the point of TVTropes, and, are in turn being exclusionary. I looked up the ICP slang, it took about five minutes, it's pretty general slang and not anything that would come up on this board. I don't think I would begrudge someone their tools of communication, so long as I could look up what it means. If you use slang whose etymologies are obscure and the meanings hidden to but a few people (taking for example, the nonsense "The Frog Needs a Pepsi"), that's exclusionary, since the reader will have no opportunity to know what it means. There are plenty of words in the english language I don't know, and when I find them, I look them up and add them to my personal lexicon (another term for vocabulary. Why didn't I use the latter? I didn't feel like using it). I don't have to use them, but I'll understand them afterward, if they're memorable enough. If they're not, well, the term dies eventually. "Information Superhighway" comes to mind as an obsolete term. We have the word Internet now. It's much better.

If your problem is people not saying anything substantial with what they're typing, well, that's just people and you should either ignore them or question them further.

TL;DR: Don't be an entitled baby whining that you don't understand people, use it as an opportunity for learning. You don't have to use it, but your communication with people will be a lot richer for it. This counts not just for TVTropes, but all shorthand and slang you come across.

Marlowe

2013-09-06, 01:06 PM

Oops, sorry. I would say you were missing out on an insightful and urbane contribution to this debate, but I don't think I could keep a straight face.Well, sorry. See above. I don't mean to patronise you. I just meant to say that you don't need to know the word to work out the sense. And that getting upset at being presented with a new word strikes me as the wrong reaction.:smallfrown:

jere7my

2013-09-06, 01:22 PM

Likewise, without at least passing knowledge of the constituent parts of media, and the language to say it with any expediency, discussion would be very awkward and take about three times as long. TVTropes contains a lot of things that I wouldn't use, and heck, I wouldn't make a habit of using JUST them. But if I needed to, say, identify a Xanatos Gambit or a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, or a Tsundere, I'd use those terms.

Good point—this discussion is really saving us all a lot of time. :smalleek:

Are you really claiming that it's "awkward" to discuss media without using the terms defined on Television Tropes? Somehow a lot of us manage to do just fine without them, and have done for decades. At the same time we've avoided endless sidetracks like "No, she's not really a Tsundere because she doesn't have a soft, glossy shell" (or whatever). Television Tropes terms muddy discussion by creating vivid, specific images in the speaker's mind—"Oh, wow, this guy is so clearly Thoaring It Over the Baboon!"—that become broad and generalized in the listeners' minds, because they have to match all the other examples in the bin.

Television Tropes is just a website. Some people like to read it and use its terms, but it holds no special imprimatur. It's not universal, whatever claims it may make; it's a repository of in-jokes and jargon. Jargon is useful, but only insofar as it reaches an audience. At a meeting of professionals, everyone understands the jargon, and anyone who doesn't probably shouldn't be there. In a public forum on the web, if a vocal minority is using their in-crowd jargon, the remainder can't and shouldn't be expected to understand them, or follow links to arbitrary external websites just to be able to follow the conversation.

I'm a Star Wars fan. I'm sure there are a bunch of us on these boards. If we consistently, over and over, kept posting that someone was a Lak Sivrak or an Amanaman, without any explanation, we would be doing a great job of communicating with each other, and incidentally waving our Star Wars fan flag and feeling good about it, but we'd be doing a terrible job of communicating with the other posters. Even if they'd heard of Amanaman, which is unlikely, it wouldn't be clear what we meant by it: A poorly-designed species that looks like it shouldn't be able to move? A character that's weirdly morbid for its target audience? A backgroud character who became popular for no good reason? A banana-planarian hybrid? We might know, from our experience of in-jokes on Star Wars websites, but most people here wouldn't.

Fans and geeks have a tendency to assume that everyone in their group shares their background and knowledge. Of course you all know that Lak Sivrak was the wolf-faced alien in the cantina who was replaced in the Special Edition; you all saw Star Wars, right?!? But Television Tropes is just one website among millions. It has a lot of fans, sure, and it's popular amongst a certain subset of the geek population. But you shouldn't expect other people to be into what you're into, or understand the references you're making, unless that's the thing that brought you together. OotS in-jokes, and to a lesser extent RPG in-jokes, are par for the course here; in-jokes from some unrelated website aren't.

TL;DR: Don't be an entitled baby whining

Nice.

jidasfire

2013-09-06, 01:39 PM

By definition, you can't stop a Xanatos Gambit. Since its definition is a plan where all possibly outcomes work in the gambiteer's favour, albeit in different ways.

Not my point at all. I was simply saying how obnoxious it is that people overcomplicate with jargon when they could just easily say things in a simple manner.

Stories don't fit into nice little boxes, and the site in question has never claimed that. What it is about is common elements between stories, which invites the reader to compare and contrast what might seem to be wildly different works.

Also not my point. I was saying that it's less to do with the site, and more to do with people who take the site's word as some sort of holy writ, and feel the need to address everything in every story as some trope or other instead of thinking about that material critically. Parrotting internet slang is not discussion. It's the same reason I hate internet memes. Easy to duplicate, change a tiny bit, and come across as insightful without actually being so. And I maintain it's insulting to creators and stories because it implies nothing they're doing is their own, and is instead just part of a set of finite puzzle pieces from which any true talent, insight, or creativity is removed.

If that's still opaque, look at it like this. The site is a tool. The tool itself isn't bad, and in fact it can be used for good. But in this case, overreliance on the tool damages that which it's supposed to serve, which is stories.

Skamandros

2013-09-06, 01:58 PM

If only it were possible to have internet discussions without a smug clique insisting everyone read their in-joke translator to be able to follow along. Really, it's a perfect example of The Frog Always Needs a Pepsi.

Not everyone, just people who either don't know it already or can't figure it out from context.

Skamandros

2013-09-06, 02:28 PM

Good point—this discussion is really saving us all a lot of time. :smalleek:

Are you really claiming that it's "awkward" to discuss media without using the terms defined on Television Tropes?

When you exclude terms like plot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Plot), characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Characters), and conflict (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Conflict), yeah, it gets a little tricky.

Knaight

2013-09-06, 02:29 PM

Should we be working to eliminate all dialect, sociolect, idiolect, neologism, slang, jargon, foreign loanwords and linguistic variation in general, and all restrict our lexical choices to one flatly homogeneous pool of terminology? How dull...

Absolutely. Slang jargon in particular is the worst. Why, someone in one of my O-Chem classes once referred to a Texas Carbon. I didn't know what that meant, and it was sad. Very sad. I don't see why "Texas Carbon" could possibly be used in favor of "Carbon drawn in such a way as to have five bonds in a molecular structure, that through its incorrectness invalidates the structure as a possible organic molecule". I mean, yes, it's shorter, and yes, it has a bit of a ring to it but I had to learn it, and that's terrible. Worse, because of how it was used I couldn't immediately tell what it meant, and had to wait a whole two seconds to learn. Two seconds. That's like, .03% of one class session. It was terrible.

The Rose Dragon

2013-09-06, 02:36 PM

When you exclude terms like plot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Plot), characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Characters), and conflict (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Conflict), yeah, it gets a little tricky.

Also, subtext. Can't forget subtext.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-06, 06:09 PM

Just a basic Stawman? Come on, give it your A-game here! Maybe imply a link to Nazis, or something. Really try to lessen the conversation.

No, it's an analogy. There is no reasonable expectation that someone should have to go learn an entire new pattern of speech just to understand your post. Note additionally that getting familiar with tvtropes is infamous for being a giant time sink.

Crowning moment of awesome would actually be the most awesome moment in the whole series, which is obvious if you look at the words.

Fine. Is "x is most awesome" harder to say than "x was the crowning moment of awesome"?

But yes, there's also subjectivity in a whole bunch of tropes. When we stop talking about the thing itself, and instead argue over what particular definition it falls into, tropes are not advancing the conversation, they are actively hindering it. And this happens all the time.

jere7my

2013-09-06, 07:42 PM

Absolutely. Slang jargon in particular is the worst. Why, someone in one of my O-Chem classes once referred to a Texas Carbon. I didn't know what that meant, and it was sad. Very sad. I don't see why "Texas Carbon" could possibly be used in favor of "Carbon drawn in such a way as to have five bonds in a molecular structure, that through its incorrectness invalidates the structure as a possible organic molecule". I mean, yes, it's shorter, and yes, it has a bit of a ring to it but I had to learn it, and that's terrible. Worse, because of how it was used I couldn't immediately tell what it meant, and had to wait a whole two seconds to learn. Two seconds. That's like, .03% of one class session. It was terrible.

In an organic chemistry class, everyone has come together with the intention of learning organic chemistry, which includes learning the jargon. The term "Texas carbon" is widely used in the field, which means it has the authority of common utility. Learning the term is arguably inherent to studying organic chemistry, if not quite as plainly as "double bond" or "benzene".

Here, we've come together to discuss RPGs and OotS and other media. Television Tropes is not an agreed-upon authority in any of those subjects, and its terms only have utility to those few who are familiar with the website. It has no more authority than Urban Dictionary or Uncle Shelby's ABZ's. Learning its various cutesy names for various literary tropes is by no means inherent to analyzing literature and media. Terms like "subtext" and "conflict" are widely used by professionals and amateurs and academics all over the world; terms like "Xanatos Gambit" are only used by the small minority who care about Television Tropes (and, I suppose, Gargoyles, which admittedly was a pretty cool show).

Don't let me stop you using them; just be aware that people who read your posts may not respond to them as you might wish. (I'm likely to roll my eyes and skip over them, unless it's a term that's obvious from its context.)

EDIT: Biking home, I thought of a way to explain my POV on Television Tropes using your orgo example. (In my day, the slang term was "orgo".)

Imagine your class has three freshmen in it, all of whom went to the same high school. Every time they give a presentation, or answer a question in class, they call anhydrides "Slurpees" and osmosis "Dorothy," and crack each other up. When met with blank looks from the other students and the prof, they explain it's because they knew a girl named Anne Hyde who worked at the 7-11, and because Dorothy was really the "Moses" of Oz, and everybody in their class in high school thought it was HI-larious. Then imagine that half the time they fall to bickering among themselves about the origins of the terms, and tell people who complain that it's all on a web site they made if anybody wants to learn the terms, so what's everybody's problem?

That'd be pretty annoying, right? I exaggerate for comic effect, but that is how Television Tropes can come across to those not in the in crowd. In the three freshmen's experience, everybody they've ever talked to about chemistry knew those terms, so they see no reason not to keep using them; they probably make their new environment feel more familiar, too. But to the rest of the class they're being disruptive, and not communicating at all well.

I think that's about as well as I can make my point, and I've spent too much time thinking about this, so I'm going to stop here, lest I go Down the Rabbit Hole.

Tavar

2013-09-06, 09:57 PM

No, it's an analogy. There is no reasonable expectation that someone should have to go learn an entire new pattern of speech just to understand your post. Note additionally that getting familiar with tvtropes is infamous for being a giant time sink.
Saying it's an analogy doesn't disprove being a strawman: you're making an analogy to a strawman. Here's how I can tell: you're saying that learning a language is the same as learning an individual term.

Hell, you're saying that learning an individual word in a language is the same as learning that language. Sorry, no, it's a strawman.

Fine. Is "x is most awesome" harder to say than "x was the crowning moment of awesome"?
Wow, could you please be honest in your examples? I mean, first off, you appear to be say that crowning is a word that is unreasonable to expect others to know, which is just silly. Secondly, the actually comparable version for the first would be "X was the most awesome moment." Not really different, no, so it's more a matter of style than anything else.

Further more, at this point you're essentially saying that people can only use one way to talk, which is silly.

But yes, there's also subjectivity in a whole bunch of tropes. When we stop talking about the thing itself, and instead argue over what particular definition it falls into, tropes are not advancing the conversation, they are actively hindering it. And this happens all the time.
Well, if you and others read the discussion, you'd realize that it's not actually a trope, at least partially because of it's subjectivity. Hell, I'm not sure it was ever really a trope: it's a catalouge of stuff people like(for various reasons).

Skamandros

2013-09-06, 11:03 PM

Terms like "subtext" and "conflict" are widely used by professionals and amateurs and academics all over the world; terms like "Xanatos Gambit" are only used by the small minority who care about Television Tropes (and, I suppose, Gargoyles, which admittedly was a pretty cool show).

What's the difference between a Xanatos Gambit and say, Chekhov's Gun? How are we to tell what's acceptable and what's not?

jere7my

2013-09-06, 11:16 PM

What's the difference between a Xanatos Gambit and say, Chekhov's Gun? How are we to tell what's acceptable and what's not?

Penetration.

Pun intended.

Edit: Seriously, if you're trying to communicate, use terms that most of your audience understands. It's that simple. No communication is perfect. If most of your audience knows that Chekhov's Gun isn't a Star Trek reference, then the tiny minority who don't can look it up, and learn something that will help them in further literary discussions. If 2/3 of the people you're talking to don't know what a Xanatos Gambit is, then that's a lot of looking up to expect people to do; you might want to use a different term.

I suspect most "Tropers" assume all other geeks are Tropers too, since that's how the geek mind works (mine included). I think that's a faulty assumption, and a bit of a rude one.

Impnemo

2013-09-07, 12:01 AM

Further more, at this point you're essentially saying that people can only use one way to talk, which is silly.

You know whats really silly in all this? The post/poster that set this in motion:

People are too happy to use TV Tropes around here.

Had this to say only a bit earlier.

Tarquin would be a pointless character if he died before he became relevant to the Gates. Chekhov's Gun and all that.

Hah. :smallwink: Don't quite know how to put this. Using literary tropes/idioms while forbidding the same to others, and using them incorrectly. Which a quick trip to, where else, tvtropes may fix.

"Elitist"? Fighting against the mainstream adaptation of new words and concepts certainly is. An openly accessible lexicon which is both "exclusionary" and "overused"? Intriguing contradiction at least. Overused I'm prepared to grant on the condition that we understand any discussion of dramatic media is necessarily limited to two courses: reactions and deconstructions. Any deconstruction of drama will find common themes and will result in those concepts getting names. Fighting the use of idioms is fighting against the evolution of language itself.

Saying it's an analogy doesn't disprove being a strawman: you're making an analogy to a strawman. Here's how I can tell: you're saying that learning a language is the same as learning an individual term.

Hell, you're saying that learning an individual word in a language is the same as learning that language. Sorry, no, it's a strawman.

To be fair, its a trap. Like any wiki, once you're there you can't help but lose yourself following links to different pages. It may actually be faster to learn a language than follow a wiki link.

jere7my

2013-09-07, 12:09 AM

Hah. :smallwink: Don't quite know how to put this. Using literary tropes/idioms while forbidding the same to others, and using them incorrectly. Which a quick trip to, where else, tvtropes may fix.

False equivalency. The distinction is between a term that is in broad use in literary analysis and one that originates on one arbitrary website and will only be understood by the people who frequent it.

Impnemo

2013-09-07, 12:13 AM

False. The term you deem acceptable was at one point new and unproven, and by your measure, never would have come into the common use which permits its common use.

SiuiS

2013-09-07, 12:27 AM

Really? As in you couldn't figure out what "cobblers" meant, purely from context?

You must have had a fun time with "Jabberwocky".

There's two problems here. The first, is that you're getting awfully smug about a nonexistent point, because I never said I had trouble with cobblers as a term. Two, do you really think deriding my supposed personal capacity to know or learn something is a valid point in a discussion like this? Isn't that the definition of an ad hominem? "You're personally dumb, so you must not be worth listening to"?

When you exclude terms like plot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Plot), characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Characters), and conflict (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Conflict), yeah, it gets a little tricky.

None of those are tropes.

Which is why I said the addition of idioms and personal and referential phrases included on a site whose url is abbreviated to just tropes is bad. Because some people will make the mistaken assumption that inclusion on the site makes a thing a trope; it does not. A trope is a thing in motion. Things which make tropes in motion are not themselves tropes.

jere7my

2013-09-07, 12:28 AM

False. The term you deem acceptable was at one point new and unproven, and by your measure, never would have come into the common use which permits its common use.

The term "Chekhov's gun" orginated in a letter written by Anton Chekhov, an accepted authority on dramaturgy. It was widely and quickly disseminated, in part because of that authority and in part because of its obvious utility. Even so, when its usage might have been unclear, authors took the time to define it within their text. Now, because of that, it is a widely accepted term.

The terms that originate on Television Tropes have no stamp of authority; they are as arbitrary as the terms on Urban Dictionary. "Tropers" attempt to shoehorn them wholesale into conversations, without bothering to define them. They expect the lexicon to swallow literally hundreds of arbitrary, cutesy terms all at once, without the courtesy of glossing them, because a) they think a Google search substitutes for communication and b) they have the geek tunnel-vision that makes them think everybody is into the thing they are into. That's not natural language evolution; that's an attempted coup.

Impnemo

2013-09-07, 12:39 AM

Can we trope fallacy? Moving goal posts, appeal to authority. Your litmus test above was, "broad use". Now its not a acceptable unless youre paid to say it is. In which case we may as well save us all the head ache and trouble ask Rich to shut down the forums as they exist to give amateurs a place to discuss and deconstruct media.

If you need something, it will be provided to you by your betters. Excellent.

Amridell

2013-09-07, 12:52 AM

Your problem with tropes is the issue I have with memes. I don't really browse/use TV tropes very much, but I can relate with communication troubles. I mean, I think everyone here is above memes, this site has a good community in terms of creating content rather than aggregating it.

I mean the annoying, overused, downright awful rage faces, the advice animals, etc. And while anything memetic gets over used and done to death eventually, I think they work their way into our general vernacular within a few generations. TV tropes are like that. They've just sort of...integrated, to the point where I can guess off context alone what one is.

jere7my

2013-09-07, 01:00 AM

If you need something, it will be provided to you by your betters. Excellent.

That's a straw man fallacy, to add to the collection; that's not at all what I said. But I am done with this conversation.

Impnemo

2013-09-07, 01:08 AM

"Broad use" is still the litmus test. You expanded the field by saying that Chekhov's gun was once not in broad use, and now it is, which is true. I explained why that happened: 1) the person who invented the term actually knew something, so people were willing to listen to him; 2) the people who used the term defined it every time they used it until it became well-known. Neither of those apply to Television Tropes, which expects the world to swallow an ever-expanding list of hundreds of cutesy terms of questionable utility.

If you want an example of a term entering broad use organically, without an appeal to authority, I can offer "redshirts". That went from TV show jargon to an in-joke/in-group signifier to a term with broad utility, and it did it incrementally and naturally. There was not a master list of Star Trek terms that Trekkies began inserting wholesale into conversations and expecting their audience to go along with it—or, if there were some who did, that was exactly the sort of thing that led to Trekkies being seen as socially awkward and rude.

If you need something, it will be provided to you by your betters. Excellent.
Oh, I get it! You're adding your own fallacy to the pile: straw man. Ha, clever.

In a way sure. If the argument is to be that only authority figures, who are naturally better suited to a particular task, are the only ones capable of performing that task then there is no need for amateurs. If the task at hand is literary criticism, since there are professional critics, no need for us to discuss literature. Since there is always a professional available to do... something... no need for amateurs to do much of... well.. anything. If that is a straw man of the appeal to authority then I am guilty.

But, since that is no longer to be the argument, oi dizzy!

So broad use is the litmus test, except when its not. K. And it has to enter common use from authority figures, except when it comes from amateur cliques of devoted fans. K.

Despite all the twisting and turning there is a common thread. Consistent use and definition of the idiom. So what tropers need then, is a way to hammer out and define tropes and make that input and information available to everyone! Oh wait.

jere7my

2013-09-07, 01:12 AM

snip

It is generally considered rude to reply to a deleted post.

Impnemo

2013-09-07, 01:17 AM

I generally consider it impossible to reply to something that doesnt exist. It existed when I replied and I think it discourteous to roll back time. There was nothing objectionable about the content of your post, disagreement is not worthy of censure.

Skamandros

2013-09-07, 01:24 AM

Edit: Seriously, if you're trying to communicate, use terms that most of your audience understands. It's that simple. No communication is perfect. If most of your audience knows that Chekhov's Gun isn't a Star Trek reference, then the tiny minority who don't can look it up, and learn something that will help them in further literary discussions. If 2/3 of the people you're talking to don't know what a Xanatos Gambit is, then that's a lot of looking up to expect people to do; you might want to use a different term.

So I should conduct a spontaneous poll every time I want to refer to a trope?

The term "Chekhov's gun" orginated in a letter written by Anton Chekhov, an accepted authority on dramaturgy. It was widely and quickly disseminated, in part because of that authority and in part because of its obvious utility.

So is "Fridge Logic" acceptable?

jere7my

2013-09-07, 02:11 AM

So is "Fridge Logic" acceptable?

Debating each example one by one is probably not profitable; the problem arises en masse. But I think "fridge logic" is still on the path that "Chekhov's gun" traveled. It was developed by someone with unimpeachable authority, and has been part of industry jargon for decades; only recently has it started to see wider use. I would not expect the average internet Joe to recognize it, though that may change. Right now, if I were to use it outside the screenwriting industry I would probably say something like, "This is a good example of what Hitchcock called 'fridge logic': something that doesn't strike you as improbable until the movie is over and you're rummaging in the fridge."

(I answered this because it's rude to ignore a polite direct question, but this really is my last post on the subject.)

huttj509

2013-09-07, 02:15 AM

If most of your audience knows that Chekhov's Gun isn't a Star Trek reference, then the tiny minority who don't can look it up, and learn something that will help them in further literary discussions.

Amusingly, I'm pretty sure in the original series, Chekhov's phaser was never fired (he did use fencing a few times). Oh, he pointed it a few times, but something always interfered.

Somehow I doubt that was an accident.

SuperPanda

2013-09-07, 05:11 AM

I haven't chimed in here yet because I feel I'm in both camps, and that said, I think both sides are making very good arguments about some things, and very poor arguments about others.

There was an excellent point on the first couple of pages about how lexical choices, such as TvTrope Idioms, signify group membership. One of the problems this creates is that when used within a separate community it can create a divide. These forums are a complimentary, but separate, community from the TvTropes wiki and many members here are familiar with and enjoy the idioms which the wiki provides. Others here are unfamiliar with those idioms and don't appreciate being told that they have to join the TvTropes group to continue participating in the forum group here. Telling members of the community here that they must learn and use the lexis of a different group, one that they may not be interested in, to continue to participate here is rude in the extreme. Many Tropers do not do this, though there are some who do.

It is still rude, but slightly less so, for members of the forum here to tell Tropers that they may not use their lexical items here. Tropers who are also forum participants have as much right to free expression as anyone else. No one really has the right to tell them that they may not use their idioms here to discuss the story and its elements.

Tropers could easily bypass that confusion by taking the short bit of time they expect other people to take and include an explanation for a term which is not in common usage. They should not reasonably need to do that more than once per thread. While it does sound tedious and unfair to expect the trope user to provide clarification for what it means and how it is being used in this instance, they are also the ones bringing their specialized group lexis into a related, but separate, community. If our forum users were going onto TvTropes and using our specialized terminology it would be expected for us to explain it there too.

That also pretty much covers the matter of effective communication. It is not that tropes are or are not effective communication tools, its that the use by an minority of trope users is both ineffective communication and socialization. The minority which is causing a problem are the ones which do not define or explain their idioms, derail conversations with discussions of said idioms, and become belligerent when asked to explain their idioms to the un-initiated and/or asked to rephrase their statement.

At the same time, there is a minority of forum members who are being equally ineffective communicators and ineffective at socialization by saying that they will not tolerate the language use of an "other" group. The entire situation creates and perpetuates a needless "us" vs "them" environment.

Where both sides fail is in recognizing that Tropes are not the same as the idioms TvTropes assigns to them. The Trope continues to exist whether or not it is named and catalogued. At the same time, TvTropes does not use any form of rigorous or systematic method of cataloguing, or even creating tropes... which is what leads to debates over whether Tarquin has been given "the idiot ball", "the villain ball", is continuing to be "wrong genre savvy", or somehow all of the above.

Now... the answer to the above becomes a very interesting discussion for everyone if you take a moment to deconstruct the meaning of the "ball" type idioms from the site. In both of the "ball" idioms a central element to the trope is that the character is acting in a manner which is inconsistent to their past characterization for no apparent reason other than to: further the plot or create dramatic tension.

With that element brought to the front of the discussion, the audience is invited to examine Tarquin's behaviors to date, as well as Rich's writing to date, and see if his actions reflect a poorly written character, because poor writing is what the "ball" type idioms refer to. This is not obvious from the term itself or from the usages described above.

That is one of the major problems I have with tvTropes and its vernacular... alot of the connotations are not clear, and are not consistently used. Tropes are often far too specific to the point that they overlap. There is no clear ordering or priority for tropes, each is used as a stand alone tag given to a story element. At the risk of harping on the "ball" type idioms again, you really could condense them all into simply "Power of Plot" and it wouldn't change anything about their use. - Said character is acting out of character for the sake of plot. You could even throw in things like "plot armor", and "speed of plot" into that.

There isn't anything inherently different in a Villain deciding to monologue at the hero and leave them in a contrived and slow death trap from which they will inevitably escape in order to create dramatic tension; and the technology of the week on Star Trek failing for a contrived reason in order to create tension until they are inherently rescued.

All of this said, I do find the database useful and fun, and I'm not against using it in discussions.

I do not think the lexis of TvTropes is particularly difficult to learn, but then I also think it is often used wrong. The trope names are not themselves tropes, they are idioms which describe tropes. As such, you can recognize a Xanatos Gambit without calling it that. TvTropes has a page on the "Mohs scale of Science Fiction Hardness", which is about Genre rather than tropes. The previously mentioned "Crowning Moment of Awesome" actually would be a trope, particularly with things like comic books and shonen anime when you compare issues to each other. One of the things in those story-types is a consistent mentality of X+1, so if we show Hulk being awesome this issue, we'll soon need him to be even more awesome. As such a comparison of the "crowning moments" of achievement across different issues within a serialized story's continuity could be quite informative. Calling the original trope "Crowning Moment of Awesome" emphasizes an incredibly subjective aspect of this.

--------------------

Summing up: Using TvTropes idioms is not inherently bad communication though it frequently is in practice. Refusing to participate in the use of TvTropes and idioms is also bad communication. On a forum which is not part of or associated with TvTropes, the burden here falls more on the Tropers than on the forumites.

Tropes can be very useful in communication... they often aren't though. A rigorous and systematic use of tropes in the analysis of stories would be an incredibly powerful and effective communication tool. That is not what TvTropes is though. The idioms it provides are encoded with a high level of nuance and connotation beyond their definitions, and are often misused by people who are using them as shorthand without taking into consideration the full meaning of the idioms they are used (which are so nuanced because of how highly specific they are).

I look forward to the point when both Tropers and non-tropers can use jargon that both parties understand either through an agreed upon lexis or through explaining things to eachother when confusion comes about.

SiuiS

2013-09-07, 02:34 PM

The term "Chekhov's gun" orginated in a letter written by Anton Chekhov, an accepted authority on dramaturgy. It was widely and quickly disseminated, in part because of that authority and in part because of its obvious utility. Even so, when its usage might have been unclear, authors took the time to define it within their text. Now, because of that, it is a widely accepted term.

The terms that originate on Television Tropes have no stamp of authority; they are as arbitrary as the terms on Urban Dictionary. "Tropers" attempt to shoehorn them wholesale into conversations, without bothering to define them. They expect the lexicon to swallow literally hundreds of arbitrary, cutesy terms all at once, without the courtesy of glossing them, because a) they think a Google search substitutes for communication and b) they have the geek tunnel-vision that makes them think everybody is into the thing they are into. That's not natural language evolution; that's an attempted coup.

I think it's unfair to lump everyone who uses tropes or the website and it's collection of tropes and idioms together in such a fashion. I know plenty o Tropers who aren't bad. I know only two personally who use them in lieu of intelligent conversation.

It's okay to be mad at overuse of tropes, but not so much everyone who uses them. That way lies madness.

Amusingly, I'm pretty sure in the original series, Chekhov's phaser was never fired (he did use fencing a few times). Oh, he pointed it a few times, but something always interfered.

Somehow I doubt that was an accident.

The character in Star Trek's name is actually spelled different than the trope name.

Kymme

2013-09-07, 02:49 PM

huttj509

2013-09-07, 03:10 PM

The character in Star Trek's name is actually spelled different than the trope name.

Bah, I can never remember how to spell either correctly.

I still don't think it was a coincidence.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-07, 03:45 PM

Saying it's an analogy doesn't disprove being a strawman: you're making an analogy to a strawman. Here's how I can tell: you're saying that learning a language is the same as learning an individual term.

Hell, you're saying that learning an individual word in a language is the same as learning that language. Sorry, no, it's a strawman.

An analogy to a strawman is impossible in the context of this statement, because a strawman requires attributing a specific(fallacious) argument to one's opponent. If my statement was an analogy, it cannot reasonably be attributing the analogy to you.

If you would put aside the gleeful labeling and actually look at my argument, surely you will realize that a language consists of words and how they are used. And no, I am not arguing against one specific trope alone. Thus, your "individual word" argument immediately falls flat.

Per Tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/page_type_counts.php), currently, 25,430 tropes exist.

If I learn 25,430 words and the correct usage and meaning of each in a language, I am fluent in that language. Very fluent in fact. College students typically only know 12,000-17,000 words in their native tongue. Fairly good(95%+ comprehension) of English as a second tongue requires only about 3,000 words.

So yeah, if you're using tvtropes lingo(I didn't even add the non tropes numbers in there, by the way) and expecting comprehension for things outside of the stuff that's popular outside of the site, it's little different than randomly inserting foreign words.

Wow, could you please be honest in your examples? I mean, first off, you appear to be say that crowning is a word that is unreasonable to expect others to know, which is just silly. Secondly, the actually comparable version for the first would be "X was the most awesome moment." Not really different, no, so it's more a matter of style than anything else.

Further more, at this point you're essentially saying that people can only use one way to talk, which is silly.

I am not talking about crowning.

Hardly. There are many valid linguistic ways to express a given opinion, especially in English. Not all of them are equally effective, though. Some are sufficiently incomprehensible or unclear that they are recommended against. For example, double negatives. One can build a structurally correct sentence with half a dozen or more negatives in it, but generally speaking, you shouldn't, because it makes your readers hate you.

Well, if you and others read the discussion, you'd realize that it's not actually a trope, at least partially because of it's subjectivity. Hell, I'm not sure it was ever really a trope: it's a catalouge of stuff people like(for various reasons).

It's from Tvtropes, it gets used as such. I do not care about the minutiae of how that site categorizes it.

Goosefeather

2013-09-07, 04:07 PM

Per Tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/page_type_counts.php), currently, 25,430 tropes exist.

If I learn 25,430 words and the correct usage and meaning of each in a language, I am fluent in that language. Very fluent in fact. College students typically only know 12,000-17,000 words in their native tongue. Fairly good(95%+ comprehension) of English as a second tongue requires only about 3,000 words.

And each and every one of those 25,430 tropes is an impenetrable term in its own right, that cannot be guessed from context and requires explanation or research to understand?

In any case, how many of those 25,430 actually end up used on these boards - 50? 100? 200? And of those, how many are actually impenetrable terms? Not all that many, I'd wager. That's not to say that it's not rude when people drop in impenetrable references without any explanation and expect everyone else to understand them, but I don't think this is as big an issue as it's being made out to be.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-07, 04:32 PM

And each and every one of those 25,430 tropes is an impenetrable term in its own right, that cannot be guessed from context and requires explanation or research to understand?

In any case, how many of those 25,430 actually end up used on these boards - 50? 100? 200? And of those, how many are actually impenetrable terms? Not all that many, I'd wager. That's not to say that it's not rude when people drop in impenetrable references without any explanation and expect everyone else to understand them, but I don't think this is as big an issue as it's being made out to be.

And many foreign language words can be guessed at from context as well. Still poor form to toss random foreign words into your sentence, and this becomes increasingly so the more you do so...the sentences with several various tropes are kind of silly.

Now, sure, as said before, the ones that are well known in the outside world are fine. They're analogous to borrowed words. The word exists in both languages. Mere inclusion on the tvtropes web site does not make a word bad. It's the stuff that isn't well known outside the website that is problematic.

It's something that I notice fairly often, and I certainly find it grating. I would imagine that exposure to this sort of thing varies depending on browsing habits. It's a lot more frequent in anything related to media(movies in particular), in my experience.

erikun

2013-09-07, 04:43 PM

I'm just gonna hop in here and give my two cents.

Can't you just use tropes as symbols for larger concepts? For instance, sometimes I put things in trope categories (BFG, Badass Normal, ect.) as a way to say more with less. However, most of my friends know about tropes, and when I bring up tropes with non-troper friends, I explain what the phrases mean, or not use them at all. Does that count as overuse, or being snobby/inconsiderate? I don't think it does.

-Kymme, out.
I think the biggest problem is that these larger concepts are frequently vague and poorly defined. In addition, there tends not to be much conversation about the tropes themselves, as opposed to lists and collections of references on the site.

I mean, I might argue that Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) is really more of a poor writing style, where everything in the narrative bends over backwards to provide for the main character. But trying to make such a comment with someone whose only knowledge is the TVTropes article is pretty difficult - they don't really know what a Mary Sue is, beyond that definition, and so can't argue anything beyond "Yes it is," or "No it isn't." It gets even worse when Mary Sue is thrown into a conversation randomly, as different people understand the term differently and the conversation frequently gets derailed into discussion of what is/isn't a Mary Sue and how well the character does/doesn't fit into the category, as opposed to actually having a conversation about the character.

Compare this to Chekhov's Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun). It has a single and very clear definition. It is quite obvious when something is or is not a Chekhov's Gun, and what a Chekhov's Gun is used for in a story. If someone states "Elan's shirt is a Chekhov's Gun" in the OotS comic then we can quickly determine what that means, ask why they think so, and progress with talking about how Elan's shirt relates to the story in the comic. We aren't stuck discussion what a Chekhov's Gun is or how well Elan's shirt fits the definition.

And watch someone show up on the next page and explain my point far better than I have. :smalltongue:

Goosefeather

2013-09-07, 04:54 PM

And many foreign language words can be guessed at from context as well. Still poor form to toss random foreign words into your sentence, and this becomes increasingly so the more you do so...the sentences with several various tropes are kind of silly.

*sotto voce, with a hint of Schadenfreude* C'est la vie, amigo....

:smalltongue:

Tavar

2013-09-07, 09:39 PM

An analogy to a strawman is impossible in the context of this statement, because a strawman requires attributing a specific(fallacious) argument to one's opponent. If my statement was an analogy, it cannot reasonably be attributing the analogy to you.

If you would put aside the gleeful labeling and actually look at my argument, surely you will realize that a language consists of words and how they are used. And no, I am not arguing against one specific trope alone. Thus, your "individual word" argument immediately falls flat.
Ah, so you're countering my argument(about individual terms when they come up) by creating a different argument(knowing a sizable number of terms at once) that is much easier to knock down.

Also known as a strawman. So at this point you're both dishonest and resorting to fallacies. Good job, I knew you could drag this conversation down!

And, well, I have looked at your argument. I don't disagree that it's ridiculous. I also feel it's a ridiculous statement to say that the only options are to be utterly, purposefully ignorant and complete comprehension.

Personally, if it's a post with a phrase or two that you don't know(more with especially longer posts), well, if it's not explained by context or directly, then yes, there's a bit of poor communication going on. Well, one can then either google the term, or even put to back on the other party! Especially if you're somewhat polite about it, they should be happy to explain. But just asking a word does not in any way enforce learning the language/complete jargon of that field, and to imply so is hugely dishonest.

Now, in a perfect world, everyone who used a word or phrase that was unfamiliar to someone else would know, and automatically provide a definition, but well, it's like that old joke "If you're absent, please raise your hand". You don't know what others don't know, and you especially don't know what's normal or strange for other groups. This, to my mind, means that communication falls on all parties involved.

You should note: I am not saying that every post using Trope terms should be treated like this. If it's using jargon all over the place, well, then you probably want to consider if you wish to get more involved. Asking them to define what they're saying more isn't out of bounds, but

Per Tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/page_type_counts.php), currently, 25,430 tropes exist.

If I learn 25,430 words and the correct usage and meaning of each in a language, I am fluent in that language. Very fluent in fact. College students typically only know 12,000-17,000 words in their native tongue. Fairly good(95%+ comprehension) of English as a second tongue requires only about 3,000 words.

So yeah, if you're using tvtropes lingo(I didn't even add the non tropes numbers in there, by the way) and expecting comprehension for things outside of the stuff that's popular outside of the site, it's little different than randomly inserting foreign words.
And no one is saying you should learn the language/jargon. In fact, you're the only one saying that, and even you had to draw a bridge from learning/having an individual term described to a full on Wiki-dive.

Furthermore, from the site, a substantial number of tropes are either things that are readily apparent from the name(Both Sides have a Point, Bodyguard Betrayal, China Takes Over the World, Condescending Compassion, Magnificent Bastard) or things that are somewhat famous sayings in their own right(Chekhov's Gun, Bread and Circuses, etc). Yes, especially from the latter there can be confusion, but that's because one's knowledge of phrases is imperfect, but that's not really a reason to shun them.

Also, there's quite a bit of genre/media-specific parlance, but that's unlikely to be used outside of that genre/media, and in that case, well, when discussion a genre/media, using stuff specific to that is pretty natural.

Moreover, there is some substantial bleed over between Tropes and this site, in terms of terminology: BBEG is something most people do not know. But it's considered perfectly fine for public use on the site(and is explained in the common definitions stickied thread).

Now, there are terms that are confusing, unclear, subjective, or have other negative qualities. Some of those are going to be difficult to explain to due misuse or overapplication(the Xanatos Gambit)

I am not talking about crowning.

Hardly. There are many valid linguistic ways to express a given opinion, especially in English. Not all of them are equally effective, though. Some are sufficiently incomprehensible or unclear that they are recommended against. For example, double negatives. One can build a structurally correct sentence with half a dozen or more negatives in it, but generally speaking, you shouldn't, because it makes your readers hate you.
If you aren't talking about crowning....

Fine. Is "x is most awesome" harder to say than "x was the crowning moment of awesome"?

Why do you then mention it?

And, while that is indeed possible for word choice to be needlessly complex, we're talking about using words in correct/common usage here, with little variation in wordcount or twists in meaning. Thus I feel confident in categorizing your argument(in the case described in the post series) as "not everyone talks in the same style as me", something I don't find compelling.

It's from Tvtropes, it gets used as such. I do not care about the minutiae of how that site categorizes it.
I've never actually seen it used as a trope(because it's not in the site), and I find your accusation of it being confusing to be at least somewhat absurd, given that a straight reading of the words involved, especially in the context of a sentence(which, because most words do have multiple meaning, is often helpful), leads to, well, one meaning. Unless you're saying that stuff like "a crowning achievement" is also too difficult and hindering the conversation.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-08, 10:36 AM

Ah, so you're countering my argument(about individual terms when they come up) by creating a different argument(knowing a sizable number of terms at once) that is much easier to knock down.

Also known as a strawman. So at this point you're both dishonest and resorting to fallacies. Good job, I knew you could drag this conversation down!

No, YOUR argument is a strawman. I will also provide no reason for why and slip in a barb at you. Now, we can yell at each other about the definition of strawman and fallacies.

Pass.

Arguing endlessly about definitions is terrible. It's the death of many a good conversation. And now that Erikun has pointed it out, I can't help but feel that this is definitely one of the problems at play with tropes.

And, well, I have looked at your argument. I don't disagree that it's ridiculous.

There we go with the double negatives, presumably because I used that as an example. Using "I feel that it's ridiculous", would be terser, clearer, and more accurate(since nobody else said it was ridiculous for you to agree with). Thank you for making my point.

And no one is saying you should learn the language/jargon. In fact, you're the only one saying that, and even you had to draw a bridge from learning/having an individual term described to a full on Wiki-dive.

Look, the site that always gets referenced for tropes, is tvtropes. It's a wiki. The tropes normally will link several other tropes within their definition. It is designed to cause a full-on wiki-dive. This isn't really a secret.

I've never actually seen it used as a trope(because it's not in the site), and I find your accusation of it being confusing to be at least somewhat absurd, given that a straight reading of the words involved, especially in the context of a sentence(which, because most words do have multiple meaning, is often helpful), leads to, well, one meaning. Unless you're saying that stuff like "a crowning achievement" is also too difficult and hindering the conversation.

Dying Moment of Awesome, in the first sentence of it's definition, references Moment of Awesome, which *is* Crowning Moment of Awesome(they go to the same page).

Marlowe

2013-09-08, 12:22 PM

There's two problems here. The first, is that you're getting awfully smug about a nonexistent point, because I never said I had trouble with cobblers as a term. Two, do you really think deriding my supposed personal capacity to know or learn something is a valid point in a discussion like this? Isn't that the definition of an ad hominem? "You're personally dumb, so you must not be worth listening to"?

If you don't have a problem, don't state it like its a problem. Your post was offensive to at least one other poster, meaningless in this particular debate, and got more mercy than it deserved.

Tavar

2013-09-08, 02:41 PM

No, YOUR argument is a strawman. I will also provide no reason for why and slip in a barb at you. Now, we can yell at each other about the definition of strawman and fallacies.

Pass.

Arguing endlessly about definitions is terrible. It's the death of many a good conversation. And now that Erikun has pointed it out, I can't help but feel that this is definitely one of the problems at play with tropes.
Ok, so now we get to the issue: you do not think my first argument was accurate. Well, you know what you could do?

COMMUNICATE THIS. Instead of being all passive aggressive, and saying/implying that I'm talking about learning a language(which is what your post did), be direct and honest.

Now, personally, I don't think you're correct. The debate started over someone using one actual trope(Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass) and one sort-of trope(Crowning Moment of Awesome, which is more of a catoluge of awesome moments). The latter is pretty self-explanatory, especially in context(strict reading of Crowning moment of awesome would lead one to think of either a awesome coronation type thing, or the most awesome moment, and the context in the situation would solve that, in the same way that it would someone saying Crowning Achievement). The former is more complicated, if only because it's clear there's some wordplay or allusion going on. Asking clarification on one or two words is the sticking point in the example given, which is significantly less than learning a language, even for simply being passable at it.

There we go with the double negatives, presumably because I used that as an example. Using "I feel that it's ridiculous", would be terser, clearer, and more accurate(since nobody else said it was ridiculous for you to agree with). Thank you for making my point.
Possibly. I feel I was more trying to be less affirmative: I agree is much stronger than "I don't disagree". Which, actually, is the point of double negatives: they add ways to communicate, without overly complicating things.

As for no one saying it to begin with: umm, yes, you did say that. Well, ok, you didn't literally type it out that, but your implication was that learning all of TVtropes=learning a language=ridiculous.

Look, the site that always gets referenced for tropes, is tvtropes. It's a wiki. The tropes normally will link several other tropes within their definition. It is designed to cause a full-on wiki-dive. This isn't really a secret.
Yes, it's a wiki, though generally you don't need to wiki-dive to get at least the basic understanding(full understanding would, as that would require knowledge of how it relates to related tropes, but that's usually unnecessary for discussion). Moreover, if you don't want go out of your way(which is completely and utterly reasonable, as I said in the above post), ask them to clarify directly. If there's something you don't understand, it's only polite for the person who introduced the term to explain it, assuming one asks.

Dying Moment of Awesome, in the first sentence of it's definition, references Moment of Awesome, which *is* Crowning Moment of Awesome(they go to the same page).
And...? Something linked to a trope does not mean it is a trope: as said, Moments of Awesome is a category of, well, awesome moments. Dying moment of Awesome is a category of tropes, which by narrowing the focus of the Moment of Awesome category

I'll notice that you somehow are still saying that Crowning Moment of Awesome/Moment of awesome is somehow unclear.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-08, 07:56 PM

Ok, so now we get to the issue: you do not think my first argument was accurate. Well, you know what you could do?

COMMUNICATE THIS. Instead of being all passive aggressive, and saying/implying that I'm talking about learning a language(which is what your post did), be direct and honest.

It's not passive aggressiveness, either. I'm merely pointing out that going down the road of labeling each others arguments, arguing over the labels, categorizing the labels, arguing some more...eventually it just becomes arguing for the sake of arguing, and ceases contributing anything to the actual topic. So, I'm uninterested in it. I'd rather just discuss things that directly apply to tropes, usage, etc than getting out there in the weeds.

Possibly. I feel I was more trying to be less affirmative: I agree is much stronger than "I don't disagree". Which, actually, is the point of double negatives: they add ways to communicate, without overly complicating things.

As for no one saying it to begin with: umm, yes, you did say that. Well, ok, you didn't literally type it out that, but your implication was that learning all of TVtropes=learning a language=ridiculous.

I did not say my argument was ridiculous, you did. So, you don't disagree with yourself? It's a bit hazy. The subject you are agreeing with is not identified explicitly, there wasn't an obvious third party from context, and your position relative to mine can obviously be characterized as disagreement from context. I'm afraid that it's unclear what you're saying here.

Yes, it's a wiki, though generally you don't need to wiki-dive to get at least the basic understanding(full understanding would, as that would require knowledge of how it relates to related tropes, but that's usually unnecessary for discussion). Moreover, if you don't want go out of your way(which is completely and utterly reasonable, as I said in the above post), ask them to clarify directly. If there's something you don't understand, it's only polite for the person who introduced the term to explain it, assuming one asks.

You can. Or you can ignore it. I remind you that the context was an online post. A post is a bit different than an in person conversation...it's considered rude to ignore someone talking directly to you...but an online forum is usually a whole mess of people, and it is expected that someone will ignore posts not of interest to them. I certainly don't even read most posts in any given forum here. If one is particularly incomprehensible or annoying, it is entirely reasonable to skip to a post of more interest.

And...? Something linked to a trope does not mean it is a trope: as said, Moments of Awesome is a category of, well, awesome moments. Dying moment of Awesome is a category of tropes, which by narrowing the focus of the Moment of Awesome category

You're skipping backward in the discussion here. I've already stated that I don't care what the precise classification is. It's hosted on the tvtropes website. It's used as a trope by users. It's used as a trope in other trope articles and definitions. Expecting people who dislike tvtropes to learn the exact lingo OF tvtropes to tell you why they dislike tvtropes is...kind of futile.

I'll notice that you somehow are still saying that Crowning Moment of Awesome/Moment of awesome is somehow unclear.

What, exactly, constitutes the crowning moment of awesome appears to be so subjective and subject to such disagreement that it appears to be unclear to the tropers themselves. You cannot reasonably expect it to be clear to others.

Your argument is like saying that you have a very clear definition of an apple, but if I had all of those involved in making the definition a fruit, it's quite possible that half of them will declare it an apple, and half not, all using that exact same definition.

Knaight

2013-09-09, 06:17 PM

In an organic chemistry class, everyone has come together with the intention of learning organic chemistry, which includes learning the jargon. The term "Texas carbon" is widely used in the field, which means it has the authority of common utility. Learning the term is arguably inherent to studying organic chemistry, if not quite as plainly as "double bond" or "benzene".

However, "Texas carbon" is still a phrase that started out as slang somewhere. It had to grow to its common use, and many of the arguments being made here would have applied to it prior to it becoming a common term. That's the case with almost all words, though O-Chem is a bit odd due to the existence of IUPAC nomenclature.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-09, 06:33 PM

Oh sure, some slang eventually makes the language, but a ton doesn't. It's a filtering process...and hell, a lot of it also sits at the dialect level or what not. I use a few words when I'm visiting folks back in the midwest that I don't use out east and so on.

Language tends to have fuzzy borders.

Skamandros

2013-09-09, 08:12 PM

And many foreign language words can be guessed at from context as well. Still poor form to toss random foreign words into your sentence, and this becomes increasingly so the more you do so...the sentences with several various tropes are kind of silly.

And we all know that discussing webcomics is serious business.

Mauve Shirt

2013-09-09, 08:16 PM

In my opinion it all just comes down to this: don't use a series of links to TV Tropes in place of having a conversation. Don't treat the wiki pages, which are all just opinion-soaked lists of examples, as if they were the be all and end all of media analysis.
I also can never remember what "tsundere" means, so there's the language barrier argument. Man, I remember back in the day when just about every post I made in Silly Message Board Games had to feature an explanation of what a mauve shirt even is. Even when Red Shirt is a common and widely-understood term, its derivatives are not always self-explanatory.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-09, 08:23 PM

Gnoman

2013-09-09, 08:35 PM

I also can never remember what "tsundere" means, so there's the language barrier argument.

Interestingly, this is a perfect example both of a term not invented by TVtropes, and one that has somewhat different meanings.

Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundere
to
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tsundere

In the latter case, the definition has been expanded to include both the original (and extremely active in Japan, according to Wikipedia) "soft-person-with-very-hard-shell" and an expanded definition of "flips-from-love-you-to-hate-you-and-back-at-a-whim". To what extent the latter version exists outside of Tropers is something that I do not know.

However, this is also an example of why the site vernacular is very useful. There is no English word that exactly encapsulates either of those archetypes without a lot of excess baggage and inaccuracy.

(Note: I decided to analyze this particular phrase because it's one of the first Tropes mentioned here that isn't part of an ongoing argument.)

Mauve Shirt

2013-09-09, 08:49 PM

I don't think that Tv Tropes was ever meant to be a substitute for full communication. I don't think Tv Tropes was meant to be an in-depth exploration of storytelling any more than MST3K was meant to be an in-depth study of the art of film.

I don't see why specifically Tv Tropes gets mentioned and not Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary or Knowyourmeme or anything like that.

But the difference is that people treat it as such. Oooo, you linked to the Chekov's Gun Page in order to prove that your favorite show has an example of that device no matter how accurate the example. The wiki says it, how dare you question?
Meanwhile no one tries to use the latter 3 in a semi-serious discussion. If you need a reference for Internet memes, I'd use the latter 3. Memes come from the Internet, you can generally trust the Internet to understand them.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-09, 08:57 PM

Then your problem is with the people who misuse it.

Your problem is with people and they way they use a non-serious thing in a serious discussion.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-09, 09:01 PM

Then your problem is with the people who misuse it.

All problems are problems with people. As for what is the "correct" way to use a site, well...thats wildly subjective. But yes, the way this particular site is frequently used is annoying.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-09, 09:04 PM

And we all know that discussing webcomics is Serious Business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness).

Fixed that for you.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-09, 09:14 PM

As someone who finds Bartle's linguistic prescriptivism equally aggravating... .

As a prescriptivist, I think calling prescriptivism "annoying" is kicking 'em while they're down.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-09, 10:36 PM

Often times? I would actually say there isn't a direct translation. Or, at least, not one that's succinct. Connotation is a real thing.
That's sometimes true, but it's often not, and frequently comes down to the anime fanbase assuming Japan has some supar special unique facet to its culture and language that can't be explained to foreigners.

Other terms also shift (To the folks wondering earlier, tsundere is also shifting its meaning among Japanese people; the tropers didn't invent the shift. In this instance, they're following the origin), and may or may not be useful at a given moment. I've found tsundere useful in both incarnations, but now that there's two, there can be a problem.

To the OP in general... yeah, after talking a lot about TVTropes with friends, I came to the conclusion that even amongst tropers using trope names that weren't incredibly common was a bad idea. There's just too bloody many tropes. And a lot of the site really does feel like... well, the matching game someone referenced earlier.

A non-zero amount of opposition to it definitely feels like 'kids get off my lawn', but to be honest, even as someone who enjoys reading it (Or did, in my spare time, and I feel I've read enough of it to be 'done'), none of the problems listed here seem that invalid.

I'll notice that you somehow are still saying that Crowning Moment of Awesome/Moment of awesome is somehow unclear.
You should not be saying this as if it's surprising about a term so played to death on TVTropes, so abjectly murdered by overuse in dozens of variants and offshoots on the site that the site itself says it's subjective.

Avilan the Grey

2013-09-10, 02:08 AM

Absolutely. Slang jargon in particular is the worst.

So you hate language as such? If you truly think this is a bad thing, you have no love for communication whatsoever, or the evolution of language.

Goosefeather

2013-09-10, 02:16 AM

So you hate language as such? If you truly think this is a bad thing, you have no love for communication whatsoever, or the evolution of language.

(Psst, Avilan, you might want to check your sarcasm detector - looks like one got through! :smalltongue: Don't worry, it happens to the best of us :smallwink:)

nyjastul69

2013-09-10, 03:06 AM

Sure, but the same could be said about any of the other idiomatic expressions listed -or rather, it could have, prior to them gaining popularity- in comparison to the extended description that they convey. For that matter, it could have been said about anything on this (http://www.idiomsite.com/) rather long list. Yet those are useful, precisely because explanations of both denotations and connotations take up much more space and likely lack in style. Language changes, and the creation of idiomatic expressions which are initially obtuse and have to be learned is part of that as is those same expressions falling into disuse. Some of these are going to be specific in a topic, and plenty of those that emerge will never really reach popularity and will subsequently fail to exist.

TV tropes is, among other things, an engine for creating idiomatic expressions that enrich the lexicons of those that employ them. Plenty of the ones it creates aren't very good, and probably won't last long, others might have some life in them. This can certainly get old, largely due to the inferior set of expressions, but the creation of a few good ones is useful. Moreover, because all idiomatic expressions have to be learned, and do grow out of very little complaining about them on the basis of them not being popular yet is somewhat questionable.

My part of this discussion has nothing to do with TV tropes. My statement was much more general. I guess I failed to make myself clear.

Avilan the Grey

2013-09-10, 03:09 AM

(Psst, Avilan, you might want to check your sarcasm detector - looks like one got through! :smalltongue: Don't worry, it happens to the best of us :smallwink:)

Fine, I'll get it to service. But not until after work. :smalltongue:

(Okay, how did I miss that one? :smallredface:)

SiuiS

2013-09-10, 07:39 AM

If you don't have a problem, don't state it like its a problem. Your post was offensive to at least one other poster, meaningless in this particular debate, and got more mercy than it deserved.

No, Marlowe. And here's why.
1- a problem can exist outside of me. This is a problem. It is a recognized problem for a lot of people and the example I used is a real life example from real life people... Just not me. This in no way invalidates my point.
2- your personal offense does not make something meaningless. A person must be able to bring impartial data to a discussion or else there's no objective value. That I brought data from humans and left my unicorn self out of it is a good thing. Bringing up data is contributing to a conversation. Bringing up nothing but subjective personal opinion is whining.
3- offense should be clearly communicated and separated from any attempt to dismiss or disprove a point. "I am offended. Also, you are wrong because" is valuable. "You're wrong because I'm offended" is not; see #2

Please calm down, and try to be more objective. We have nothing to gain by throwing bruised egos and hurt feelings around. If you want me to address your sense of upset, I will. But I can't do this if I only know about it through inference because you toss out a heated and half-baked counterpoint to a straw man.

In my opinion it all just comes down to this: don't use a series of links to TV Tropes in place of having a conversation. Don't treat the wiki pages, which are all just opinion-soaked lists of examples, as if they were the be all and end all of media analysis.
I also can never remember what "tsundere" means, so there's the language barrier argument. Man, I remember back in the day when just about every post I made in Silly Message Board Games had to feature an explanation of what a mauve shirt even is. Even when Red Shirt is a common and widely-understood term, its derivatives are not always self-explanatory.

Yes.

And, Mauve Shirt is a trope? :smalleek:

I don't think that Tv Tropes was ever meant to be a substitute for full communication. I don't think Tv Tropes was meant to be an in-depth exploration of storytelling any more than MST3K was meant to be an in-depth study of the art of film.

I don't see why specifically Tv Tropes gets mentioned and not Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary or Knowyourmeme or anything like that.

Because unlike TVtropes, no one takes uncyclopedia or memebase seriously. People actually use TVTropes like it is a scientifically vetted encyclopedia.

Ghost Nappa

2013-09-10, 10:19 AM

I think the biggest problem is that these larger concepts are frequently vague and poorly defined. In addition, there tends not to be much conversation about the tropes themselves, as opposed to lists and collections of references on the site.

False. The problem is not that there tends to be little to no discussion of the tropes so much as any discussion of the trope is kept to a separate page to avoid cluttering the main one. There are both benefits and detriments to such a method, but given how discussion of tropes applied to or examined from the OotS-verse has both this forum and the pages of TVTropes for the actual discussion I fail to see this as anything more than a marketing issue.

I mean, I might argue that Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) is really more of a poor writing style, where everything in the narrative bends over backwards to provide for the main character. But trying to make such a comment with someone whose only knowledge is the TVTropes article is pretty difficult - they don't really know what a Mary Sue is, beyond that definition, and so can't argue anything beyond "Yes it is," or "No it isn't." It gets even worse when Mary Sue is thrown into a conversation randomly, as different people understand the term differently and the conversation frequently gets derailed into discussion of what is/isn't a Mary Sue and how well the character does/doesn't fit into the category, as opposed to actually having a conversation about the character.

Compare this to Chekhov's Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun). It has a single and very clear definition. It is quite obvious when something is or is not a Chekhov's Gun, and what a Chekhov's Gun is used for in a story. If someone states "Elan's shirt is a Chekhov's Gun" in the OotS comic then we can quickly determine what that means, ask why they think so, and progress with talking about how Elan's shirt relates to the story in the comic. We aren't stuck discussion what a Chekhov's Gun is or how well Elan's shirt fits the definition.

And watch someone show up on the next page and explain my point far better than I have. :smalltongue:

To reply more directly to the OP, while TVTropes does admittedly have a fairly high entrance fee, I liken the first couple of days of trope-hyper-link-binge-clicking as to a Kid hopped up on Sugar. They've taken in too much, and need to quickly expel something from themself.

Afterwards, there's only a handful of terms that you wind up consistingly using with everything else being just a quick check away. I find the most interesting ones to be less the tropes themselves, and more the way they are twisted and played with by an author (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayingWithATrope) ranging from "subversion," or foreshadowing something only to play out as a trope only for it to not to, all the way to "Lampshaded" where a character basically calls out a trope. Here's a meta-example you've already seen (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html).

However, to say that the lexicon, vocabulary, or terminology is exclusive is utterly ridiculous compared to other languages. I've spent the last ten years learning how to speak and read Spanish and I still find it difficult to understand casually simply because I am not expecting to do so, and because people are capable of speaking in Spanish faster than my mind can translate sub-consciously or consciously. TVTropes as an internet entity is already accessible to everyone currently reading this sentence, requiring only English as a pre-requisite. Considering how English is also a pre-requisite to reading the comic that this forum is dedicated to, I fail to see the issue.

It seems to be more that you are refusing to learn it out of defiance for a "mainstream" culture - which is definitely not mainstream. It is a subculture. Refusing to learn it out of laziness is potentially crippling in some circumstances, or extremely enlightening in others. Most tropes tend to be rather straight-forward in concept, and blur the lines and get confusing with other examples: which is not as different as other words you might come across like "to," "too," and "two" which all sound the same, but are spelled differently and have different usages. There are also plenty of people who think they understand a trope, but don't and use it wrong. What TVtropes tries to do is a good thing: give a short, succinct name to narrative concepts or patterns that may not necessarily have names in order to facilitate the discussion of different works of fiction.

The problem is not in TVTropes itself, but in the behavior of people who are overusing or misusing it (as per the title of your thread). But this is a minority of a minority, and calling attention to it spawned a two-headed dragon of a thread that is trying to eat itself.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-10, 10:23 AM

It seems to be more that you are refusing to learn it out of defiance for a "mainstream" culture - which is definitely not mainstream. It is a subculture. Refusing to learn it out of laziness is potentially crippling in some circumstances, or extremely enlightening in others.

I take issue with the terminology "refused to learn". It's a poor descriptor of a lot of people. It's not like this is something like math where you have to actively refuse to learn it.

Especially with the reference to "laziness"....cmon now. There are any number of reasons why someone may not enjoy the same site you do. Calling it a refusal to learn out of laziness is just weird. I wouldn't use that terminology to describe someone who had never read OOTS, despite it being a good comic.

Grif

2013-09-10, 11:19 AM

Because unlike TVtropes, no one takes uncyclopedia or memebase seriously. People actually use TVTropes like it is a scientifically vetted encyclopedia.

This gets brought up a couple of times. And again, it relates to people just making a poor effort to communicate themselves, rather than the fault of TVTropes. Arguably, TVTropes enables this to an extent, but one should never blame the tool, only the person wielding it. If someone takes TVTropes seriously... well, then you already have cause to deem their opinion less than valid.

I look it at this way, if TVTropes does not exist, people will invariably use another equally meaningless term in an attempt to communicate their message poorly.

Coidzor

2013-09-10, 11:29 AM

I take issue with the terminology "refused to learn". It's a poor descriptor of a lot of people. It's not like this is something like math where you have to actively refuse to learn it.

Especially with the reference to "laziness"....cmon now. There are any number of reasons why someone may not enjoy the same site you do. Calling it a refusal to learn out of laziness is just weird. I wouldn't use that terminology to describe someone who had never read OOTS, despite it being a good comic.

Errr... What? :smallconfused: You think every person who has difficulties learning math is deliberately and actively refusing to learn? :smallconfused: If so, then you're woefully misinformed. I mean, there's ample examples of people who were so traumatized by poor experiences with teachers during their formative years that they have subconscious blocks on various subjects as well as a body of evidence suggesting that telling a group, for instance women, that they can't do math will cause them to be unable to do math even if they're actively trying. And that's just off the cuff without even needing to go into things like learning disabilities, teaching methodologies, relative intelligence...

Also, if you're regularly encountering a form of terminology and you're shutting it out and not even bothering to pick up what you run into or making use of the reference tools to doublecheck what is going on... That's a deliberate choice here on the internet, because generally when TVtropes is brought up, hyperlinks abound. Laziness probably isn't the reason after a certain amount of exposure, in that case raw stubbornness becomes more likely, but it's probable that laziness does account for some people not bothering the first half-dozen-to-dozen-odd times.

erikun

2013-09-10, 11:31 AM

Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundere
to
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tsundere

In the latter case, the definition has been expanded to include both the original (and extremely active in Japan, according to Wikipedia) "soft-person-with-very-hard-shell" and an expanded definition of "flips-from-love-you-to-hate-you-and-back-at-a-whim". To what extent the latter version exists outside of Tropers is something that I do not know.
Interesting. I was familiar with the japanese term, but had no clue that there was a separate definition on TVTropes. If anyone were to describe a person as "tsundere" using the Tropes definition, I would understandably be confused by the difference.

It seems to be more that you are refusing to learn it out of defiance for a "mainstream" culture - which is definitely not mainstream. It is a subculture. Refusing to learn it out of laziness is potentially crippling in some circumstances, or extremely enlightening in others. Most tropes tend to be rather straight-forward in concept, and blur the lines and get confusing with other examples: which is not as different as other words you might come across like "to," "too," and "two" which all sound the same, but are spelled differently and have different usages. There are also plenty of people who think they understand a trope, but don't and use it wrong. What TVtropes tries to do is a good thing: give a short, succinct name to narrative concepts or patterns that may not necessarily have names in order to facilitate the discussion of different works of fiction.

The problem is not in TVTropes itself, but in the behavior of people who are overusing or misusing it (as per the title of your thread). But this is a minority of a minority, and calling attention to it spawned a two-headed dragon of a thread that is trying to eat itself.
I am not sure who you are referring to, as I never gave an indication that I don't read nor refuse to learn TVTropes articles. In fact, my ability to link them directly and complain about what the particular articles lack is pretty much an indication that I am quite familiar with them, both in their content and points where they lack.

While it may be a minority of a minority, it is still distracting and annoying. Quite a few people in this thread have mentioned that they have no problem with people reading tropes, or knowing what they mean, or even at times referencing them with explanation. The problem is people who overuse TVTropes vocabulary to the point where it begins to cause problems - the title of the thread itself. I'm not sure why discussing the topic is a problem, for those interested in discussing such.

Coidzor

2013-09-10, 11:42 AM

While it may be a minority of a minority, it is still distracting and annoying. Quite a few people in this thread have mentioned that they have no problem with people reading tropes, or knowing what they mean, or even at times referencing them with explanation. The problem is people who overuse TVTropes vocabulary to the point where it begins to cause problems - the title of the thread itself. I'm not sure why discussing the topic is a problem, for those interested in discussing such.

I'd just gotten the impression from the tone of the thread that the problem was any use of trope terms was an overuse similar to the attitude some people have towards ever referencing memes, like somehow saying "my mom is obsessed with lolcats," is a huge sin. *shrug*

Prime32

2013-09-10, 11:46 AM

Interesting. I was familiar with the japanese term, but had no clue that there was a separate definition on TVTropes. If anyone were to describe a person as "tsundere" using the Tropes definition, I would understandably be confused by the difference.That's not a TVTropes thing. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoyuY1i9ys?t=20s)

RPGuru1331

2013-09-10, 12:01 PM

This gets brought up a couple of times. And again, it relates to people just making a poor effort to communicate themselves, rather than the fault of TVTropes. Arguably, TVTropes enables this to an extent, but one should never blame the tool, only the person wielding it. If someone takes TVTropes seriously... well, then you already have cause to deem their opinion less than valid.
TVTropes isn't a tool. It's a site. An entertaining one, yes, but if you expect people not to become understandably irritated at the thing itself for its annoying fans, you've never heard of Homestuck.

Interesting. I was familiar with the japanese term, but had no clue that there was a separate definition on TVTropes. If anyone were to describe a person as "tsundere" using the Tropes definition, I would understandably be confused by the difference.
I'm reasonably certain wikipedia is behind on the shift in its meaning amongst japanese people. To say the least, TVTropes isn't responsible for it.

Also, if you're regularly encountering a form of terminology and you're shutting it out and not even bothering to pick up what you run into or making use of the reference tools to doublecheck what is going on... That's a deliberate choice here on the internet, because generally when TVtropes is brought up, hyperlinks abound. Laziness probably isn't the reason after a certain amount of exposure, in that case raw stubbornness becomes more likely, but it's probable that laziness does account for some people not bothering the first half-dozen-to-dozen-odd times.
Why is 'complete lack of interest' not an acceptable reason to avoid a site known for wasting time? Yeah, it's the internet, you can learn, but TVTropes isn't particularly important or relevant, so there's no real impetus to do so, except for the fans insisting on communicating through its terms.

Coidzor

2013-09-10, 12:43 PM

Why is 'complete lack of interest' not an acceptable reason to avoid a site known for wasting time? Yeah, it's the internet, you can learn, but TVTropes isn't particularly important or relevant, so there's no real impetus to do so, except for the fans insisting on communicating through its terms.

Because if you keep running into it, eventually it's either give this term that keeps popping up and is unclear a quick skim just so I get rid of that niggling annoyance, blow up at people to the point of flirting with flaming, leave, or refuse to take a couple of seconds to relieve some of the pressure while continuing the conversation.

It only wastes time beyond the baseline expenditure of figuring out what the hell these people are talking about if you want to waste time there, as with most things on the internet.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-10, 12:46 PM

TVTropes isn't a tool. It's a site. An entertaining one, yes, but if you expect people not to become understandably irritated at the thing itself for its annoying fans, you've never heard of Homestuck.

That doesn't seem fair to me.

Why blame a thing itself for its stupid fans?

Tavar

2013-09-10, 12:47 PM

Eh, I would say laziness, or even simple no desire to go to the site is a decent enough reason to not go to the site, and if an explanation is asked you should respond not just with a hyperlink but by actually explaining things in text.

That said, if you don't ask, or actively ignore, well, if you chose not to be part of a conversation then complaining about that seems a bit odd.

You should not be saying this as if it's surprising about a term so played to death on TVTropes, so abjectly murdered by overuse in dozens of variants and offshoots on the site that the site itself says it's subjective.

Can you parse the phrase "The best food is X"? Or "my favorite color is "? Or even "the most awesome moment in x is y? If so, you have zero ground to complain about how the phrase us confusing.

Yes, it is subjective, and there was a mess, because they tried to get an objective statement out if a totally subjective field. But all of that is internal to the site. The real subjective-ness is because, well, it is no different from a favorite food.

Coidzor

2013-09-10, 12:47 PM

That doesn't seem fair to me.

Why blame a thing itself for its stupid fans?

Encouraging them, I believe. Personally I've never really understood why we don't just go to the source and blame the people behind the thing and engaging with the community of fans. I suppose it's about 50-50 whether there's legal reasons why that would be a bad idea.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-10, 01:07 PM

Encouraging them, I believe. Personally I've never really understood why we don't just go to the source and blame the people behind the thing and engaging with the community of fans. I suppose it's about 50-50 whether there's legal reasons why that would be a bad idea.

That's like blaming Acadian French for cajuns (four words: History Channel's Swamp People).

Coidzor

2013-09-10, 01:15 PM

That's like blaming Acadian French for cajuns (four words: History Channel's Swamp People).

Well, more the British who you can also thank for the existence of Australians. Or Stephanie Meyer for the inability to write anything that blends elements of the real world with fantasy without people clamoring for more vampire sex or editorial pressure to add in vampires so you can have vampire sex so it'll sell.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-10, 02:47 PM

Because if you keep running into it, eventually it's either give this term that keeps popping up and is unclear a quick skim just so I get rid of that niggling annoyance, blow up at people to the point of flirting with flaming, leave, or refuse to take a couple of seconds to relieve some of the pressure while continuing the conversation.

TVtropes isn't conducive to a 'quick read' though. Unless things have changed vastly, it's designed to force a wiki dive, by explaining articles through other articles.

It only wastes time beyond the baseline expenditure of figuring out what the hell these people are talking about if you want to waste time there, as with most things on the internet.
Yes, but nobody would dare call me lazy if I said I didn't feel like learning all about Pokemon or Star Wars just because some of their fans like the same thing I like and continually refer to something as being 'like Genesect' or 'sort of a watered-down Thrawn' or what have you. And unlike TVtropes, I can pretty reasonably learn about at least Genesect without needing much more context.

Why blame a thing itself for its stupid fans?
Because it attracted fans of such poor quality and with such loud mouths? Black Mage was definitely my favorite character of 8BT, but I don't exactly hold Brian Clevinger as not being responsible for the typical Black Mage fan (the ones who think he's cool and awesome and zomg; I thought his suffering was a thing of great deliciousness, personally). Clevinger appears to agree, and hated those fans more than I do, to his credit.

Crap, I don't even hate homestuck, because I *didn't* deal with annoying fans. But I know numerous folks who have, in fact, dealt with annoying fans and hate it for that reason.

Coidzor

2013-09-10, 04:29 PM

TVtropes isn't conducive to a 'quick read' though. Unless things have changed vastly, it's designed to force a wiki dive, by explaining articles through other articles.

Some articles, sure. Other articles not so much. I always found that the articles were a 1-2 minute read, tops, and it was the examples which ate up the majority of time.

Yes, but nobody would dare call me lazy if I said I didn't feel like learning all about Pokemon or Star Wars just because some of their fans like the same thing I like and continually refer to something as being 'like Genesect' or 'sort of a watered-down Thrawn' or what have you. And unlike TVtropes, I can pretty reasonably learn about at least Genesect without needing much more context.

They would if you kept hanging around discussion where it was being thrown around like candy without even bothering to gain some kind of working knowledge of the jargon that goes along with it.

Skamandros

2013-09-10, 05:00 PM

Why is 'complete lack of interest' not an acceptable reason to avoid a site known for wasting time?

The fact that you're arguing about TvTropes puts a strict upper limit on how much you value your time.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-10, 05:05 PM

Mauve Shirt

2013-09-10, 05:14 PM

Yes.

And, Mauve Shirt is a trope? :smalleek:

See what everyone is saying about jargon?

A named background character who is not unlikely to be killed off for drama, but is safer than a redshirt by virtue of having a name. Think Kazumi and Diego from OOTS.
I got my name by pressing the random button on the site we're discussing. :smalltongue:

huttj509

2013-09-10, 06:53 PM

Maybe people could write what they say twice; once in the jargon of what he or she is talking about; and once in not-jargon.

I mean, there's a reason why a doctor can diagnose Xanthelasma and explain what it is to a patient with no medical background. When he talks to other doctors, it's Xanthelasma. When he talks to the patient, it's "Xanthelasma; which is yellow eye bumps. They cause blindness, but are curable".

Medical Jargon is useful for letting doctors talk to each other clearly and directly; and "plain English" is useful for letting doctors talk to patients clearly and directly.

Not to say that pokemon fans are some sort of learned specialists, necessarily; or that Tv Tropes lets you diagnose things in a story like a doctor; or that people who use jargon are more educated than people who don't.

What I am saying is that there's a reason why you can say the same thing in different ways; and that you should try to talk in a discussion in a way that works best to communicate with your listener. Be sensitive to the other person in the discussion.

So yeah, using Tv Tropes jargon among people who don't understand Tv Tropes jargon isn't going to work. Using that jargon among people who do understand it; however, is more appropriate.

Here's the problem: Forum posts often feel like a casual conversation. In a casual conversation, I'm not defining everything unless someone expresses confusion, because I generally know the general demographics of my fellow conversers (wow that was awkward phrasing).

Online? I don't know you. I don't know what you know.

I was in a conversation recently with a friend about horror movie stupidity. I used the phrase "holding the idiot ball" because I felt it expressed what I was trying to convey. It did. Had the response been "huh?" I would have apologized, and explained what I meant in another way.

In a face to face conversation, this can happen easily. It's real-time. In a forum discussion, people don't often hang around hitting refresh so they can reply immediately if something's asked. Even in an active discussion, there might be 5 minutes between the people involved.

In this situation, yes, if someone's being completely unclear, ask. If the confusion's regarding a single word or phrase, asking, then getting a response might take 10 minutes at best for the back and forth, while a quick google takes much less time.

Ideally, we'd all automatically use words and phrases known to others. However, even IRL I've had trouble understanding someone, apologized for being unable to parse their sentence (they were being completely clear, I just had a mental hiccup and couldn't derive meaning from the sentence, matching pronouns and such).

I then got chewed out for using the word 'parse.'

I was not trying to lord superior knowledge or vocabulary. I was not trying to be at all obscure. I was using the word because it was the right freaking word, and it never crossed my mind that the person I was talking to might not know it.

And this was in a IM direct back and forth discussion, where response time was fairly immediate. Although it did lack body language and expressions that might have clued me in on not being understood in time to clarify.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-10, 07:48 PM

Some articles, sure. Other articles not so much. I always found that the articles were a 1-2 minute read, tops, and it was the examples which ate up the majority of time.
One individual article that is well-written and not self referring, who's examples are no help elucidating the concept...

Again, you're not speaking to someone who hates TVTropes. I like the site. But I'm not up to the task of expecting everyone else to learn jargon just to discuss The Wizard of Oz with me.

They would if you kept hanging around discussion where it was being thrown around like candy without even bothering to gain some kind of working knowledge of the jargon that goes along with it.
Wait what? That's nonsense. If I'm in *Their* place, that's one thing, but no. I have no obligation, on let's say Transformers forums, to learn about Sengoku history just because 3 or 4 folks on a forum insist on peppering references to Uesugi Kenshin, Oda Nobunaga and the like into their posts. If you only want to talk to the other Sengoku nerds, fine. Elsewise, at the least be prepared to explain who Toyotomi Hideyoshi is, and why you feel he is an analogue to Rodimus Prime.

The fact that you're arguing about TvTropes puts a strict upper limit on how much you value your time.
60 seconds while watching Archer reruns. Just because this absorbs your time doesn't make it difficult for me.
Edit: And another 30 seconds to edit on waking up before work.

Skamandros

2013-09-10, 11:36 PM

60 seconds while watching Archer reruns. Just because this absorbs your time doesn't make it difficult for me.

I've spent about five minutes on TvTropes this week, all of it because of this discussion.

I'm used to getting this reaction, though. Sometime, someone is going to mention Xanthelasma, and I'm going to know that it's fat deposits under the eyelids, and they're going to assume I went to Med school.

Just 'cause I looked something up once.

Poison_Fish

2013-09-10, 11:48 PM

I've spent about five minutes on TvTropes this week, all of it because of this discussion.

I'm used to getting this reaction, though. Sometime, someone is going to mention Xanthelasma, and I'm going to know that it's fat deposits under the eyelids, and they're going to assume I went to Med school.

Just 'cause I looked something up once.

http://bfhmods.ucoz.com/the_more_you_know2.jpg

Lorsa

2013-09-11, 06:31 AM

A very interesting thread, as I consider clear communication to be very important and often forgotten or ignored by most people. In many ways I agree with the Original Poster (OP), allow me to share my opinion.

I believe very strongly that it is the responsibility of those that is trying to communicate a certain message to make themselves understood, not the responsibility of the receiver. You can not expect the receiver of your message to be involved in some form of guessing game of what you were trying to say. It's up to you to try to figure what sort of language can and cannot be used. If it is impossible because none of you share even the hint of commonality in language then obviously communication is impossible (for this purpose I count gesticulation and pictures as language).

People visiting this forum are implicitly expected to know English - thus English is a language that can be used. In as clear manner as possible.

As was mentioned, communication can also be used to build, well a community. Certain words and phrases can make people feel connected but it can equally easy make people feel excluded.

If you have a vocabulary that is heavily used in one group you can not simply go to another group and use the same language and expect everyone to understand you. The act of doing so will communicate one of two things; either you want to assimilate this other group into the group you come from or you want to exclude everyone who is not part of both groups. When in a new/other group you have to adapt your language to this group or else you fail both types of communication (that to transfer ideas/messages and that which builds a group together).

Jargon that is used within one group can not be expected to work in another group. I don't use references to quantum mechanics here on this forum even though everyone in the room I'm sitting in would understand it. The fact that you could look up these terms on Wikipedia is irrelevant.

Someone mentioned jargon that is used within this forum but lists mainly (with a few exceptions) a bunch of abbreviations. Abbreviations is not jargon. They too need to be explained however, ideally the first time they're used within a thread (like Rhynn does on the roleplaying forum with A:AitKW). Adherence to that simple rule would make many forum threads much easier to understand for a first-time user. Some abbreviations mentioned, such as V, is also used in the very comic that this site is based on. The very little actual jargon that exists is okay as long as it's part of the culture that is this site. Even so I am often astonished when people simply expect me to understand when they throw themselves with it without explanation. This is too diverse a crowd for much jargon to take place.

Many people in the group that is this forum's users does not want TvTropes jargon to be a part of the language used here. That needs to be respected or else you are going to exclude people. I don't like exclusion. When visiting the TvTropes forum you need to adapt to the language of that group.

I find the argument that "it's easy to look up" to be flawed. If it is that easy to look up, why don't you, as the one trying to send a message, go to that very same page and copy-paste the description of the thing you wanted to say? Why do I need to spend my time doing it? Again, the responsibility is not on the end of the receiver.

Annars hade jag ju lika gärna kunnat skriva allt på svenska och påstå att eftersom det finns bra översättare på google så kan du ju kolla upp vad det betyder själv.

The language you use does not only communicate a message, it also gives a picture of you as a person. Thus it is very important to pay attention to how you say things so you are perceived in the way you want to be perceived. I for example, and many others I know, think people writing sentences like "u ha 2 stay up l8 w me" or something (I can't even imitate it) makes that person look stupid. That may or may not be true, but that's how you would be perceived by a lot of people and you need to be aware of that and adjust your language accordingly.

Also, there are some very basic rules of communication that will make things a lot easier for everyone if you adhere to:
-The first time you write an abbreviation in a thread, explain what it means (this is the default for scientific articles).
-When you express opinions use "I think" or "I believe" or similar statements.
-When you express observable facts use "It is" or similar hard statements.

I've been skirting close to, and even crossing the line between my last two statements in this post. It was intentional. I believe much of what I said to be fact (even if it isn't).

Tyndmyr

2013-09-11, 10:02 AM

60 seconds while watching Archer reruns. Just because this absorbs your time doesn't make it difficult for me.
Edit: And another 30 seconds to edit on waking up before work.

This is an excellent point. I'm in bed with Mono, and have been for weeks. My time now? Not so critical. I'm chattin' bout a lot of things I usually wouldn't bother with. Making assumptions about how other people value their time based on a forum post is a dodgy business.

Skamandros

2013-09-11, 01:12 PM

Many people in the group that is this forum's users does not want TvTropes jargon to be a part of the language used here. That needs to be respected or else you are going to exclude people. I don't like exclusion. When visiting the TvTropes forum you need to adapt to the language of that group.

One of the big problems with that is that 'TvTropes jargon' is an ill-defined term.

Annars hade jag ju lika gärna kunnat skriva allt på svenska och påstå att eftersom det finns bra översättare på google så kan du ju kolla upp vad det betyder själv.

You won't get any complaints from me.

Coidzor

2013-09-11, 02:38 PM

I've been skirting close to, and even crossing the line between my last two statements in this post. It was intentional. I believe much of what I said to be fact (even if it isn't).

You wanna try to get the site rules to change, go ahead. That's the only way you'll be able to enforce that kind of control of the language others employ, though. Either it takes hold as it has and becomes part of the site's culture to a greater or lesser extent or it doesn't and railing against it isn't going to do you much good.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-11, 02:54 PM

One of the big problems with that is that 'TvTropes jargon' is an ill-defined term.
If it hasn't been defined yet, I'll keep it brief - any trope that is not already an industry standard or common vernacular term. And an industry standard term is still jargon, it's just not TVTropes jargon in particular.

You won't get any complaints from me.

Yet, the forum rules explicitly state that you must speak only in English.

You wanna try to get the site rules to change, go ahead. That's the only way you'll be able to enforce that kind of control of the language others employ, though. Either it takes hold as it has and becomes part of the site's culture to a greater or lesser extent or it doesn't and railing against it isn't going to do you much good.
Conceivably, you could change how you behave in the culture. Or don't, but accept that you're not communicating with everyone. I wasn't aware this was a plea to the mods.

Skamandros

2013-09-11, 03:40 PM

If it hasn't been defined yet, I'll keep it brief - any trope that is not already an industry standard or common vernacular term. And an industry standard term is still jargon, it's just not TVTropes jargon in particular.

I said ill-defined, not undefined. There's no clear way of telling whether a term is an industry standard or common vernacular.

Lorsa

2013-09-11, 04:20 PM

You won't get any complaints from me.

That's good to know! Although I am sure others could complain.

You wanna try to get the site rules to change, go ahead. That's the only way you'll be able to enforce that kind of control of the language others employ, though. Either it takes hold as it has and becomes part of the site's culture to a greater or lesser extent or it doesn't and railing against it isn't going to do you much good.

I don't want to change the rules, I am hoping people will understand why matters of communication are important and change their behavior accordingly.

Yet, the forum rules explicitly state that you must speak only in English.

That's what I get for not reading the rules clearly. I apologize for my transgression, it won't happen again.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-11, 05:01 PM

I said ill-defined, not undefined. There's no clear way of telling whether a term is an industry standard or common vernacular.

As far as I can recall, TVTropes quite gleefully points out itself when a term is already an industry standard. Depending on where you are, it might not be wise to throw those around either - again, it's still jargon. But it's something you can more readily expect an afficionado to know.

That's what I get for not reading the rules clearly. I apologize for my transgression, it won't happen again.
You were fine in my book. The point was that his approval didn't change the facts about accessibility.

Skamandros

2013-09-11, 06:14 PM

As far as I can recall, TVTropes quite gleefully points out itself when a term is already an industry standard.

So in order to complain about someone using troper jargon, you have to look it up on TvTropes to make sure it's actually from TvTropes?

RPGuru1331

2013-09-11, 06:58 PM

So what happens when you use industry standard jargon with someone who still doesn't know it? Are you gonna say "Hah, you have to know this, it's used commonly in literature!"? And what happens when they say "I just wanted to talk about Hunger Games!"

This is getting stupid. It sounds like you just want to find some loophole that you think will make you right, rather than communicate clearly or accept that you sometimes should explain yourself.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-11, 07:04 PM

This is getting stupid. It sounds like you just want to find some loophole that you think will make you right, rather than communicate clearly or accept that you sometimes should explain yourself.

Sir, that is what everyone does in an argument. That is, if not the de jure definition of argument, at least the de facto definition.

And human nature never changes. You can tell people what they're doing wrong and they'll keep doing it. Arguments are never going to be free sharing of ideas and acceptance of knowledge gained from other viewpoints based on an assumption that when two people disagree, they can both be right.

This pointless bickering is what arguing is. It's a natural consequence of people disagreeing.

Skamandros

2013-09-11, 07:52 PM

So what happens when you use industry standard jargon with someone who still doesn't know it?

I explain it to them.

Avilan the Grey

2013-09-12, 05:58 AM

I explain it to them.

Personally I have nothing against using TV Tropes, but everything in Moderation.

And as is stated above, at least a third of the terms used are already "industry standard" or has become such thanks to TV Tropes.

Chekow's Gun
Idiot Ball
The Dragon
The McGuffin
Mary Sue

And many more.

Lorsa

2013-09-12, 06:09 AM

Personally I have nothing against using TV Tropes, but everything in Moderation.

And as is stated above, at least a third of the terms used are already "industry standard" or has become such thanks to TV Tropes.

Chekow's Gun
Idiot Ball
The Dragon
The McGuffin
Mary Sue

And many more.

Of those 5, I only know of 3 that I believe has been used long before TVT was in existance and the other two I have never heard before exposed to TVT phrases.

Avilan the Grey

2013-09-12, 06:22 AM

Of those 5, I only know of 3 that I believe has been used long before TVT was in existance and the other two I have never heard before exposed to TVT phrases.

Let's ask this then: Where did those three come from? (retorical)
Expressions and memes and tropes are all spread by usage. Should those three have not been introduced, because migh might have alienated someone?

There is one thing to write a text that basically only is TVTropes links, and another completely to use some of the expressions from that site on other sites or in spoken language.

bluewind95

2013-09-12, 11:29 AM

As a test, I told my mother something was fridge logic. She's NEVER heard the term. She did not have Google available to her at the time. I used only a single sentence. I then asked her to define Fridge Logic.

She was able to, with 100% accuracy, define the term. She could not tell that it was called so because it's something you'd think about while going to the fridge, but she did correctly define it as "something you don't think about until later".

Personally, I have encountered jargon that I do not understand. After reading the discussion, I often do have an understanding of the term, just by the context gained from the discussion. If I do have questions left about it, it's just a minute or so that it takes me to look it up and clear up any doubts I still had. Or I can just ask.

Thing is, if you are following the discussion, the context should provide a lot of the meaning of the jargon. It might be annoying to see a lot of links and jargon terms, but context is an incredibly powerful tool. That said, while it's not generally the responsibility of the receiver to look up terms they don't understand, one has to recall that we're in a huge general forum and the speaker also has no way of knowing who knows what terms. The aforementioned doctor would know when (s)he's speaking to another doctor or when (s)he's speaking to someone who isn't. But in a forum, the audience is so huge that this becomes impossible. And then the speaker must simply try to communicate in the way they find most efficient. In this case, unlike other mentioned cases (like the doctor), more responsibility falls on the receiver to clear up things they don't understand because it's simply not feasible that the speaker would know that they don't understand.

Another thing about jargon is that if you see enough people using it in a group, you'll tend to use it too. If there were a lot of people using TVtropes jargon, it is no wonder that others joined in. Now, that jargon IS part of the group, it has been assimilated as all language tends to do, and there is some expectation that those who are in the group should at least be willing to familiarize themselves with some of the terms. Annoying? Perhaps. But a very natural thing.

Lorsa

2013-09-12, 12:00 PM

Morgarion

2013-09-12, 12:23 PM

My problem with TV Tropes is that it doesn't really do anything. It's a ridiculous amount of work on description that does absolutely nothing to help with analysis. It's just a big list of facts and categories of things that really doesn't facilitate any meaningful theoretical development regarding the media it pertains to.

Furthermore, about half the tropes are so obvious that to codify them risks reifying or 'mummifying' the language involved, reducing it to a single static definition and robbing us, the language users, the ability to use it to create meaning. The others are so convoluted and unique as to make discussing them as tropes unnecessary.

bluewind95

2013-09-12, 02:32 PM

Now I know one more thing! Kind of silly name though as it has nothing to do with logic, or fridges.

Does it really need to be a "term" for that though, that is, a term you use often in conversation?

I mean, isn't it just as easy to say "yeah, this is definitely a plot hole, but usually not something you think of right away".

If I'm talking to my mom, then I will not use that term normally. If I am talking in a place where I have seen many people use the term, then I will use it. Shorter and people will understand it.

Personally I find TVtropes useful, in a way. Not so much with the definitions... but with the examples. I can see many different ways in which X idea was done and that might help with inspiration.

Coidzor

2013-09-12, 02:56 PM

I don't want to change the rules, I am hoping people will understand why matters of communication are important and change their behavior accordingly.

I just don't see it. Mostly because even the most successful and persuasive argument would result in people digging in their heels and refusing to change how they speak because it suits them just fine.

Conceivably, you could change how you behave in the culture. Or don't, but accept that you're not communicating with everyone. I wasn't aware this was a plea to the mods.

Wanting to effect a change upon the entire forum's culture would require, insofar as I can tell, either A. a colossal effort to reach just about every user and convince them to stop using terms that appear on TVTropes. Ever. or B. changing the site rules. I find succeeding in changing the site rules to be the less far-fetched and onerous possibility.

Personally I have nothing against using TV Tropes, but everything in Moderation.

Indeed, though, as far as I can tell, the terms of the thread are that overuse is defined as any use, and no one who is anti-TV Tropes has chimed in otherwise when I queried if I was correct in my analysis of how the argument had evolved at the point which I jumped in. :smallconfused:

Or, at least, I recall that I asked that. Could be a false memory, I suppose, I had ought to check on that.

In the meantime, is my understanding correct? Is it an objection to any use as overuse or is there some line which I've managed to miss?

Knaight

2013-09-12, 03:10 PM

I mean, isn't it just as easy to say "yeah, this is definitely a plot hole, but usually not something you think of right away".

Fridge logic is three syllables. That is 22-24, depending on dialect. As such, it's not just as easy to say, particularly when embedding it in a broader context. If the entire sentence being replaced is "This is Fridge Logic", then sure, it's a non-issue. If the example sentence being altered is more along the lines of "While non-plot elements of the work are usually strong, even a cursory application of Fridge Logic renders the plot an incoherent mess" there might be issues - though that exact sentence is still easy to alter, largely because I don't personally use the term Fridge Logic, and thus am less able to integrate it within a sentence. That's hardly a knock against the term however, as the exact same thing could be said about a number of normal words.

Lorsa

2013-09-12, 03:13 PM

In the meantime, is my understanding correct? Is it an objection to any use as overuse or is there some line which I've managed to miss?

I think the line is "as long as the audience understands what you mean". It's a bit vague I know. Some things can be understood from context, whereas others can not. There are words I thought I understood from their context but when checking them up realized I was wrong. I personally don't get offended by TVTrope vocabulary as much as the OP, but I did get annoyed that so many people thought it was up to the receiver of a message to make sure she/he understand it. I am of the belief that you as a speaker should adapt to your target audience and the lesser assumptions you make of their knowledge the better. On this forum the two most workable assumptions are that people know english know what Order of the Stick is. The larger the crowd the fewer assumptions you can make.

Gnoman

2013-09-12, 03:31 PM

Now I know one more thing! Kind of silly name though as it has nothing to do with logic, or fridges.

The name refers to "while you're at the fridge getting a beer, you start to find flaws in the logic of the show."

Themrys

2013-09-12, 04:37 PM

Obviously, no one really needs terms like "Crowning moment of awesome". However, there are TVTropes that are very, very useful for discussing texts without having to explain everything.

The length of the TVTropes text is usually a good indicator as to how necessary the term is: The longer the explanation, the more time saved by using the TVTropes term.

I do not, nor will I ever, accept the demand that terms have to be invented by an "authority" so that their use will be acceptable.
Such ideas enable the moving of goalposts, as there is no proper definition of "authority" on which all people could agree.

Usefulness should be all that matters. Broad use? By whom? And how can a term get to be used all over the internet if the first people who read it refuse to understand it, based on the fact that it's "just an invention"?

huttj509

2013-09-12, 04:55 PM

The name refers to "while you're at the fridge getting a beer, you start to find flaws in the logic of the show."

And was allegedly coined by Hitchcock (Icebox Scene) to refer to a scene in one of his movies where a character just disappeared with no explanation, but the flow worked, so it wasn't until later watchers realized "wait, where'd so-and-so go?"

Tyndmyr

2013-09-12, 08:13 PM

Wanting to effect a change upon the entire forum's culture would require, insofar as I can tell, either A. a colossal effort to reach just about every user and convince them to stop using terms that appear on TVTropes. Ever. or B. changing the site rules. I find succeeding in changing the site rules to be the less far-fetched and onerous possibility.

I think that's perhaps overstated. One can improve things without fixing absolutely every single instance of them. We don't NEED to convince every person to never, ever, ever use any tvtropes term.

We just need to promote good communication, which helps them AND us. It's no different from friendly encouragement for a really sloppy typist to make his post more readable. Sure, there will always be the occasional terribly written post, but a difference can be made.

Knaight

2013-09-12, 09:21 PM

Obviously, no one really needs terms like "Crowning moment of awesome". However, there are TVTropes that are very, very useful for discussing texts without having to explain everything.

That applies to essentially everything though. There are a handful of terms that it would be extremely hard to work around (e.g. 'a', 'an', 'the', 'and', 'but', and 'or') but it can generally be done. That doesn't mean it should be.

GoblinArchmage

2013-09-12, 11:35 PM

RPGuru1331

2013-09-13, 12:54 AM

That applies to essentially everything though. There are a handful of terms that it would be extremely hard to work around (e.g. 'a', 'an', 'the', 'and', 'but', and 'or') but it can generally be done. That doesn't mean it should be.

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should" is sometimes true, yes. On the other hand, Crowning Moment of Awesome in particular is an utter mess and the dilution that surrounded it rather makes its own case for why it should be avoided.

You have to admit that the troper jargon does become a problem when, on the TV Tropes forums, when people talk about the characters in their own writing, they simply list a bunch of tropes.
That is godawful if true.

I do not, nor will I ever, accept the demand that terms have to be invented by an "authority" so that their use will be acceptable.
Such ideas enable the moving of goalposts, as there is no proper definition of "authority" on which all people could agree.
You can speak however you want. But you can't assume people will understand you when using jargon unless you have an excellent reason to think they specifically understand it.

Wanting to effect a change upon the entire forum's culture would require, insofar as I can tell, either A. a colossal effort to reach just about every user and convince them to stop using terms that appear on TVTropes. Ever. or B. changing the site rules. I find succeeding in changing the site rules to be the less far-fetched and onerous possibility.
Not really. I mean supposing that'd be ideal, failing to reach the ideal doesn't mean change doesn't occur.

I explain it to them.
And if you do it without looking down your nose about how they should already know this and/or have looked it up themselves, then that's great - and a far cry from the conversation prior, about how people had an implied ethical responsibility to learn TVTropes' Jargon because someone is using it in their presence.

Coidzor

2013-09-13, 01:00 AM

Not really. I mean supposing that'd be ideal, failing to reach the ideal doesn't mean change doesn't occur.

And if you do it without looking down your nose about how they should already know this and/or have looked it up themselves, then that's great - and a far cry from the conversation prior, about how people had an implied ethical responsibility to learn TVTropes' Jargon because someone is using it in their presence.

I suppose, though you'll mostly get stuff like this thread and maybe slightly effect some people's behavior to a moderate extent to my knowledge.

Hey, I wasn't saying if it was merely someone, I was saying if it was enough people to indicate that using TVTropes jargon regularly is part of the culture of a forum or sub-forum. :smalltongue:

You have to admit that the troper jargon does become a problem when, on the TV Tropes forums, when people talk about the characters in their own writing, they simply list a bunch of tropes. If you can only describe your character by listing the tropes that apply, then you don't have a character. You just have a list of tropes and cliches.

Also, saying that something is an example of Trope X is actually completely useless. Why is it an example?

Yeah, I'd probably want to [violent action] those people too.

huttj509

2013-09-13, 01:49 AM

And if you do it without looking down your nose about how they should already know this and/or have looked it up themselves, then that's great - and a far cry from the conversation prior, about how people had an implied ethical responsibility to learn TVTropes' Jargon because someone is using it in their presence.

As opposed to looking down your nose and insisting that people be absolutely certain to only use words that they're absolutely certain everybody who might view a forum thread is already familiar with?

Both sides have made a diving roll for the extremes at points during this thread.

Lorsa

2013-09-13, 02:58 AM

Themrys

2013-09-13, 05:09 AM

I am confused here. Are you comparing TVT jargon with basic prepositions?

Seems as if. I'm not even sure what he wants to say by that.

We shouldn't use any complicated words at all, since there could be people who don't understand them, and the only words we're allowed to use are basic prepositions as it's so difficult to live without them?

No idea, really.

I get that people who aren't interested in media cliches and the use or avoidance thereof don't want to read unknown TVTropes terms everywhere.

BUT:

As with every topic, if someone wants to discuss cliches, they should be willing to do some reading beforehand. And not refuse to learn something because it "wasn't written by an authority".

One example: The "Tropes vs Women" videos are considered boring by many people. They are considered boring because they explain problems that most people interested in the topic do already know about.
Likewise, it is boring as hell to explain again and again, to newcomers in a discussion, what a certain term means. Therefore, I will absolutely refuse to do that, and not accept lazy excuses like "It wasnt' coined by an authority"

John Cribati

2013-09-13, 07:25 AM

You have to admit that the troper jargon does become a problem when, on the TV Tropes forums, when people talk about the characters in their own writing, they simply list a bunch of tropes. If you can only describe your character by listing the tropes that apply, then you don't have a character. You just have a list of tropes and cliches.

I personally don't see the problem with this, in theory. Trope names are just words. Words are used to convey ideas, and often very complicated ones at that. Let's say I write a character that is antisocial and lacks moral responsibility or social conscience. There's a word for that: sociopath. So I'm going to use the word "sociopath" to describe him when I'm describing the character. And if my character acts in a certain way, and there is a trope that describes a character that acts in that way, I will use the trope name to denote the fact that he acts in a certain way, especially if I'm on a site that's all about tropes and trope names.

The major thing is, describing a character- IE telling others about a character- pretty much is listing tropes. As an example, If you read in the book that a character consistently makes references to different anime or manga, you'd know that he watches a lot of anime/reads a lot of manga. If you read several fight scenes where he predicts the other person's movements by reading the their body language, you'll know that that's a skill he possesses. And if you read that he lives with people who aren't his parents, you'll assume that his parents are no longer in the picture.

Now, if you were to give a rough description of that character, you would say he's a fan of anime and manga, that his skill in a fight is being able to analyze his opponent's movements, and that neither of his parents are around.

Which is the same thing as saying he's something of an Otaku (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Otaku), he fights with the power of Awesomeness By Analysis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomenessByAnalysis), and that he has both a Missing Mom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MissingMom) and Disappeared Dad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisappearedDad).

RPGuru1331

2013-09-13, 09:53 AM

As opposed to looking down your nose and insisting that people be absolutely certain to only use words that they're absolutely certain everybody who might view a forum thread is already familiar with?
Not my problem, as it's not what I've said.

Both sides have made a diving roll for the extremes at points during this thread.

A fallacy of the golden mean isn't right just because it's common.

I personally don't see the problem with this, in theory
Your own example shaves less than a line, but substitutes in jargon. You're not putting forth a great example for why it should be done in the first place. To be fair, you may have saved more, if by 'fan of anime and manga' you meant 'otaku'. 'Otaku' connotes a much deeper level of caring - especially in fiction. Well, no, I suppose "obsessive" or "major" would cover that level of connotation fine, so perhaps not much space after all.

Further, your example doesn't really tell us anything about the character. For a very rough description, that can be fine. What I read, and prompted 'godawful if true', was that people were talking about their own writing - this should be more animated, and much more in depth. And there comes a point where you really need more information than that.

Edit:
Hm.

he's a fan of anime and manga, that his skill in a fight is being able to analyze his opponent's movements, and that neither of his parents are around.

he's something of an Otaku, he fights with the power of Awesomeness By Analysis, and that he has both a Missing Mom and Disappeared Dad.
You shaved a tiny bit more space than a tag close, actually. That kinda isn't great, come to think of it.

As with every topic, if someone wants to discuss cliches, they should be willing to do some reading beforehand. And not refuse to learn something because it "wasn't written by an authority".
The only reading one should have to do to discuss cliches is read cliche'd writing. That's kind of its own punishment. Also, allegedly tropes aren't cliches

Likewise, it is boring as hell to explain again and again, to newcomers in a discussion, what a certain term means. Therefore, I will absolutely refuse to do that, and not accept lazy excuses like "It wasnt' coined by an authority"
"I don't feel like wasting my time on a site you like" is only laziness if you have a responsibility to learn the terms because someone else insists on bringing them to a discussion. About the only sort of place I can see that can legitimately say that is when we're talking about a lexicon that actually dominates the community - for instance, Transformers jargon on a Transformers fansite. And here's the thing: Not only does that place a different responsibility, but being abjectly unwilling to explain drives away new blood from your fan site. Here, that's less of a concern... except you evidently also lack the corresponding dominance to say "Everyone must use TVTropes slang and already know it," what with the fact that this isn't tvtropes.org. In my book, the lazy people are the people unwilling to change their writing habits entirely, not the ones who avoid time-wasting sites (however entertaining I find them)

Knaight

2013-09-13, 10:30 AM

I am confused here. Are you comparing TVT jargon with basic prepositions?

I'm saying that, with the notable exception of basic prepositions it is possible to cut basically any word out and use circumlocution instead. TVT jargon is part of that, as is just about any word in this sentence. For instance, I could have said "pattern of symbols or sounds that connote a meaning" in lieu of word, or "indirect methods of allusion towards certain words" in lieu of circumlocution. As such, the capacity to not use a TVT term is completely irrelevant.

John Cribati

2013-09-13, 10:41 AM

Further, your example doesn't really tell us anything about the character. For a very rough description, that can be fine. What I read, and prompted 'godawful if true', was that people were talking about their own writing - this should be more animated, and much more in depth. And there comes a point where you really need more information than that.

An important part of writing anything is determining the point at which a reader requires more information, and at what point that information should be disseminated. I don't need to give a detailed description of a character's entire arc if I'm describing that character to a friend with the intent to get them to read/watch the series in which the character appears, because that is not the point at which my friend needs to know the character's entire arc (actually, at no point before finishing a series should any viewer know the entirety of any character's arc).

In the process of describing any character- unless I'm doing an essay or something- nobody should really go beyond what a reader would know after the first few episodes/chapters. And guess what? Those things are quite adequately defined by listing a bunch of tropes. Especially, as I said before, if I'm communicating on a forum for a wiki that creates names for the purpose of to document tropes. That's why they list the tropes there, because it's easy to say and everyone will know what they're talking about.

For example, if I were to describe the character Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender, I would basically say what you'd see on the surface: He's the banished prince of the Fire Nation, he has a scar on his face, and capturing the Avatar- an errand many saw as a wild goose chase- is the only way he can return home. The main theme of his arc is about restoring his honor and learning to make decisions based on what he believes is right, not what he is told to do.

Does that say everything that happens to him? No. Is it enough? Yes. And yet, I could go through the paragraph and replace everything with a trope name, except the word "Avatar" and the phrase "Fire Nation"

So, again, I don't see the problem. Do some people actually go the lazy route and build a character that's nothing but cliches? Yes. But just because I can't do a backflip doesn't mean gymnastics isn't a sport.

razark

2013-09-13, 11:13 AM

And yet, I could go through the paragraph and replace everything with a trope name, except the word "Avatar" and the phrase "Fire Nation"
Just because you could, doesn't mean you should. You could go and translate it all into Latin. Or make up your own language. That doesn't mean that either of those options are appropriate for communicating here.

John Cribati

2013-09-13, 11:20 AM

Just because you could, doesn't mean you should. You could go and translate it all into Latin. Or make up your own language. That doesn't mean that either of those options are appropriate for communicating here.

Good thing that's what I'm talking about then...

Especially, as I said before, if I'm communicating on a forum for a wiki that creates names for the purpose of to document tropes.

Oh wait, I'm not. :smallannoyed:

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-13, 11:52 AM

How about we split the site in two. One half will be people who like Tv Tropes jargon, and the other half will be people who don't.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-13, 12:20 PM

John Cribati

2013-09-13, 12:55 PM

The very thing being discussed is indeed lazy writing on that level though, not the entire site itself. And while I'm agnostic on whether it actually happened, if it did, it's really irritatingly lazy.

As someone who participated in the writing forum for a while, it actually didn't happen that often. Usually when an author brings up a character for in-depth discussion and it involves a list of tropes, it's supposed to give the other forumites a vague idea of the character because it's meant to judge the reaction to a character that acts a certain way. Or else, it'll be something akin to what you'd find on a tvtropes Character page, with the tropes the character shows off, and a few lines of text explaining each one. Anyone who actually drops a list of tropes and says "critique my character/story" is either ignored or told "give us more."

jere7my

2013-09-13, 01:54 PM

Likewise, it is boring as hell to explain again and again, to newcomers in a discussion, what a certain term means. Therefore, I will absolutely refuse to do that, and not accept lazy excuses like "It wasnt' coined by an authority"

Nobody in this thread has ever said that we should only use terms that were coined by an authority. If you're referring to my earlier posts about Hitchcock and Chekhov, I was offering examples of how terms enter the common lexicon—being coined by an authority gives some terms a leg up on the process, but it's by no means the only way it happens (see: redshirts).

What's ironic here is that you're appealing to an authority: the website Television Tropes:

As with every topic, if someone wants to discuss cliches, they should be willing to do some reading beforehand. And not refuse to learn something because it "wasn't written by an authority".

By telling people to "do some reading beforehand" you are implicitly suggesting that Television Tropes is an authoritative source for discussing media cliches. That's exactly what's under dispute here. Many people don't think Television Tropes has any sort of authority, and that learning the terms thereon would be worse than a waste of time.

An English dictionary, for example, is a recognized authority for discussions in the English language. It's probably not the best practice in the world to force people to pick up a dictionary over and over to understand your posts, but it's fine if someone does need to hit the dictionary once in a while, because the dictionary is an agreed-upon authority for everyone involved in the discussion. Television Tropes is a website that some percentage of internet users think is an authority, when it's no more so than Urban Dictionary or Wookieepedia or Jere7my's House of Made-Up Words and Garbage.

The way new terms enter the lexicon is through constant glossing. If a group of co-workers in some field comes up with a useful piece of jargon, and they want its use to expand outside their group, they define it every time they use it, until it catches on. Most Television Tropes have not caught on with non-tropers yet, and they should be glossed. It doesn't matter whether you think it's boring; that's the burden you shoulder for using terms that not everyone knows.

If you want to communicate, the burden is on you to determine what your audience will understand. If you choose to use inscrutable Television Tropes like "Draco in leather pants", without glossing them, you are stating that you don't care to communicate with people who don't like the same website you do. If that's the message you want to send, I can't stop you, but it's going to affect other people's comprehension of and opinion of your posts.

Forum Explorer

2013-09-13, 04:44 PM

An important part of writing anything is determining the point at which a reader requires more information, and at what point that information should be disseminated. I don't need to give a detailed description of a character's entire arc if I'm describing that character to a friend with the intent to get them to read/watch the series in which the character appears, because that is not the point at which my friend needs to know the character's entire arc (actually, at no point before finishing a series should any viewer know the entirety of any character's arc).

In the process of describing any character- unless I'm doing an essay or something- nobody should really go beyond what a reader would know after the first few episodes/chapters. And guess what? Those things are quite adequately defined by listing a bunch of tropes. Especially, as I said before, if I'm communicating on a forum for a wiki that creates names for the purpose of to document tropes. That's why they list the tropes there, because it's easy to say and everyone will know what they're talking about.

For example, if I were to describe the character Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender, I would basically say what you'd see on the surface: He's the banished prince of the Fire Nation, he has a scar on his face, and capturing the Avatar- an errand many saw as a wild goose chase- is the only way he can return home. The main theme of his arc is about restoring his honor and learning to make decisions based on what he believes is right, not what he is told to do.

Does that say everything that happens to him? No. Is it enough? Yes. And yet, I could go through the paragraph and replace everything with a trope name, except the word "Avatar" and the phrase "Fire Nation"

So, again, I don't see the problem. Do some people actually go the lazy route and build a character that's nothing but cliches? Yes. But just because I can't do a backflip doesn't mean gymnastics isn't a sport.

Eh I disagree. I think tropes are too general and simply listing off a list of tropes will likely give a wrong impression of the character. It gives you some idea sure, but simply avoiding trope usage (except in certain characteristics) would give a much better idea of what/who the character actually is.

Nobody in this thread has ever said that we should only use terms that were coined by an authority. If you're referring to my earlier posts about Hitchcock and Chekhov, I was offering examples of how terms enter the common lexicon—being coined by an authority gives some terms a leg up on the process, but it's by no means the only way it happens (see: redshirts).

What's ironic here is that you're appealing to an authority: the website Television Tropes:

By telling people to "do some reading beforehand" you are implicitly suggesting that Television Tropes is an authoritative source for discussing media cliches. That's exactly what's under dispute here. Many people don't think Television Tropes has any sort of authority, and that learning the terms thereon would be worse than a waste of time.

An English dictionary, for example, is a recognized authority for discussions in the English language. It's probably not the best practice in the world to force people to pick up a dictionary over and over to understand your posts, but it's fine if someone does need to hit the dictionary once in a while, because the dictionary is an agreed-upon authority for everyone involved in the discussion. Television Tropes is a website that some percentage of internet users think is an authority, when it's no more so than Urban Dictionary or Wookieepedia or Jere7my's House of Made-Up Words and Garbage.

The way new terms enter the lexicon is through constant glossing. If a group of co-workers in some field comes up with a useful piece of jargon, and they want its use to expand outside their group, they define it every time they use it, until it catches on. Most Television Tropes have not caught on with non-tropers yet, and they should be glossed. It doesn't matter whether you think it's boring; that's the burden you shoulder for using terms that not everyone knows.

If you want to communicate, the burden is on you to determine what your audience will understand. If you choose to use inscrutable Television Tropes like "Draco in leather pants", without glossing them, you are stating that you don't care to communicate with people who don't like the same website you do. If that's the message you want to send, I can't stop you, but it's going to affect other people's comprehension of and opinion of your posts.

This I very much agree with. If I'm going to use a trope in a conversation then I'd best be ready to explain what that trope means if the people I'm communicating with are not familiar with the word in question. Same if I was using some other slang, or even just rarely used words.

Coidzor

2013-09-13, 05:19 PM

I personally don't see the problem with this, in theory. Trope names are just words. Words are used to convey ideas, and often very complicated ones at that. Let's say I write a character that is antisocial and lacks moral responsibility or social conscience. There's a word for that: sociopath. So I'm going to use the word "sociopath" to describe him when I'm describing the character. And if my character acts in a certain way, and there is a trope that describes a character that acts in that way, I will use the trope name to denote the fact that he acts in a certain way, especially if I'm on a site that's all about tropes and trope names.

The major thing is, describing a character- IE telling others about a character- pretty much is listing tropes. As an example, If you read in the book that a character consistently makes references to different anime or manga, you'd know that he watches a lot of anime/reads a lot of manga. If you read several fight scenes where he predicts the other person's movements by reading the their body language, you'll know that that's a skill he possesses. And if you read that he lives with people who aren't his parents, you'll assume that his parents are no longer in the picture.

Now, if you were to give a rough description of that character, you would say he's a fan of anime and manga, that his skill in a fight is being able to analyze his opponent's movements, and that neither of his parents are around.

Which is the same thing as saying he's something of an Otaku (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Otaku), he fights with the power of Awesomeness By Analysis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomenessByAnalysis), and that he has both a Missing Mom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MissingMom) and Disappeared Dad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisappearedDad).

You've got a point there, aye, and this is the Media Discussion sub-forum, which, conveniently, is where I mostly find people using TVTropes jargon at all on this site, with much sparser use in the roleplaying sub-fora when discussing theming and the story aspect.

Not just listing tropes, unless the character is nothing but a pastiche of cliches. You need some words in there as well to modify the tropes or cover what they don't.

Aside from otaku this feels like the sort of kludgey description that was being described by warty goblin about people just regurgitating a list of tropes, and it doesn't even really save that much on wordcount. :/

Disappeared Dad or Missing Mom only really make sense if the absence of one of them is notable, if they're both gone you just look weird stating it like that instead of saying the parents are gone or missing or dead. :smallconfused: And who doesn't want to have a character scream "MY PARENTS ARE DEAD," while whaling on some mooks or even the big bad?

Nobody in this thread has ever said that we should only use terms that were coined by an authority. If you're referring to my earlier posts about Hitchcock and Chekhov, I was offering examples of how terms enter the common lexicon—being coined by an authority gives some terms a leg up on the process, but it's by no means the only way it happens (see: redshirts).

Several have effectively said or seemed to say that any term that appears on TVTropes, regardless of whether it's something which was coined on TVTropes, should never be used by anyone, however.

This I very much agree with. If I'm going to use a trope in a conversation then I'd best be ready to explain what that trope means if the people I'm communicating with are not familiar with the word in question. Same if I was using some other slang, or even just rarely used words.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm only really here because I saw people arguing that we should forbid others from using TVTropes jargon in any and all cases. Which is ridiculous. You can take my life, but ye cannae take me referring to faceless, nameless minions as mooks.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-13, 07:06 PM

Television Tropes is a website that some percentage of internet users think is an authority, when it's no more so than Urban Dictionary or Wookieepedia or Jere7my's House of Made-Up Words and Garbage.
Actually, I'd put more on wookieepedia than I would on TVTropes, because wookieepedia has a very narrow niche, all told. To the extent there is a single, somewhat authoritative star wars encyclopedia on all to-date canon, it's definitely them. Meanwhile, there's the actual texts used within schools that focus on teaching film makers...

Disappeared Dad or Missing Mom only really make sense if the absence of one of them is notable, if they're both gone you just look weird stating it like that instead of saying the parents are gone or missing or dead. And who doesn't want to have a character scream "MY PARENTS ARE DEAD," while whaling on some mooks or even the big bad?
Deadpool has something to say about that!

http://i.imgur.com/CrCzYY8.jpg

Pretty much, yeah. I'm only really here because I saw people arguing that we should forbid others from using TVTropes jargon in any and all cases. Which is ridiculous. You can take my life, but ye cannae take me referring to faceless, nameless minions as mooks.
"Mook" for minion originates off TVTropes as well, just fyi.

jere7my

2013-09-13, 07:27 PM

"Mook" for minion originates off TVTropes as well, just fyi.

"Mook" is way, way older than Television Tropes. It was used in Scorsese's Mean Streets, in 1973:

A mook is a slang term for a guy who’s basically a brainless ass; someone with all brawn, but no smarts. These characteristics were well known in men whose identities were tied up in being ‘muscle’, or foot soldiers for Mob bosses. The fact that the fellow called a mook, as well as the characters portrayed by Keitel and De Niro, is clueless as to what the term means, shows to the viewer, and to the pool hall owner, that they are not as tough and connected as they think they are. Any real mook would know what he was being called, and why.

Coidzor

2013-09-13, 07:34 PM

Deadpool has something to say about that!

http://i.imgur.com/CrCzYY8.jpg

"Mook" for minion originates off TVTropes as well, just fyi.

Oh, Deadpool. :smallamused: My only regret is that Scott Kurtz somehow managed to scrub all of the copies of his My Parents are Dead, murderous batman comic off the web as far as I've been able to find, and I lost my copy of the file too. :/

I suspected as much, but I am pretty sure that it appears on TVTropes. And it's just fun to say "mook."

Reverent-One

2013-09-13, 07:52 PM

Oh, Deadpool. :smallamused: My only regret is that Scott Kurtz somehow managed to scrub all of the copies of his My Parents are Dead, murderous batman comic off the web as far as I've been able to find, and I lost my copy of the file too. :/

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/5280/2y4.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img4/7963/b9r.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img854/9920/vrz.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img62/1983/yij.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img822/2333/km0f.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img443/6936/q4.gif

You're welcome.

jere7my

2013-09-13, 07:56 PM

Lorsa

2013-09-14, 03:31 AM

Several have effectively said or seemed to say that any term that appears on TVTropes, regardless of whether it's something which was coined on TVTropes, should never be used by anyone, however.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm only really here because I saw people arguing that we should forbid others from using TVTropes jargon in any and all cases. Which is ridiculous. You can take my life, but ye cannae take me referring to faceless, nameless minions as mooks.

I'm not sure who said that, if anyone. What I said was that if you're on another site than TV Tropes, you should do the same as with abbreviations and explain them the first time they're used in a discussion. Not everytime they come up in a topic, but the first time.

Otherwise there are people who won't understand what you say.

Also, not all faceless, nameless minions are mooks I thought? And that's a term that has been used long before TV Tropes existed. Still can be good to explain what it means the first time it's used.

huttj509

2013-09-14, 05:33 AM

As near as I can tell, the comment on the OOTS #917 thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15964393#post15964393) that sparked the creation of this thread was:

Originally Posted by Amphiox

I must say that the intense care Roy is taking on keeping Belkar alive really counts as a Crowning Moment of Awesome for him, both in the fact that he is doing it, and in the intelligent manner in which he is doing it.

And Elan's little speech to Tarquin is another one of his random*-flashes-of-impressive-wisdom that he has displayed repeatedly at various points in the narrative.

*Ok, not actually *random*. It's pretty consistently whenever Elan is under emotional stress of some kind and has no teammate to bail him out. Kind of a Crouching Moron Hidden Badass sort of deal.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in that comment that's confusing. My 60-odd mother with no clue what TVTropes is (unless my brother's mentioned it) could understand that post easily enough, though she might ask "Crouching Moron Hidden Badass? Is that a thing now?" Especially since the latter trope name is used as a secondary description of the point, at the end of the footnote, it's not critical to comprehension.

That comment was then jumped on for being indicative of an alleged issue that people on this site are too TVTropes happy, to the detriment of communication.

The thread creator referred to ANY use of trope language as "reeking of inside joke elitism," a sentiment which carried over to the first few posts in this thread.

I think that more recent accusations of the sentiment were unfairly colored by the tone of prior comments, as when I tried looking for recent posts regarding "yes, people have been saying that, right...wait...I thought there was a post like that here..." I couldn't find them.

I genuinely thought I had seen people recently in this thread advocating for "no trope mentioning EVER, even as an aside," hence my comment about "both sides diving for the extremes." It wasn't intended to be "the solution's somewhere in between" golden mean fallacy type thing, just pointing out that people were getting a bit silly...in which I was mistaken, sorry.

Wait, why are trope names bad, but tossing out "fallacy of the golden mean" without explanation is just fine?

Lorsa

2013-09-14, 05:55 AM

Wait, why are trope names bad, but tossing out "fallacy of the golden mean" without explanation is just fine?

To be perfectly honest I don't like that either and have been thinking of asking what sort of fallacies I need to know in order to be part of discussion on this forum.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-14, 10:08 AM

To be perfectly honest I don't like that either and have been thinking of asking what sort of fallacies I need to know in order to be part of discussion on this forum.

People are also too fallacy happy here, yes. Some folks apparently think that all they need to do is cite a fallacy name, and they have countered your point and won the argument.

I would ALSO be very ok with seeing a lot less of that.

Theoboldi

2013-09-14, 10:19 AM

To be perfectly honest I don't like that either and have been thinking of asking what sort of fallacies I need to know in order to be part of discussion on this forum.

Thank goodness. I thought I was the only one who had no idea what RPGuru was talking about.

People are also too fallacy happy here, yes. Some folks apparently think that all they need to do is cite a fallacy name, and they have countered your point and won the argument.

I would ALSO be very ok with seeing a lot less of that.

Indeed. I also find it somewhat hypocritical in regards to this topic. What exactly differentiates quoting fallacies without any further explanation from quoting tropes without any further explanation?

Lorsa

2013-09-14, 10:58 AM

Basically I think fallacy of the golden mean indicates an argument that says that the truth is in the middle of two extremes, or a compromise of the two. This obviously doesn't have to be the case.

People are also too fallacy happy here, yes. Some folks apparently think that all they need to do is cite a fallacy name, and they have countered your point and won the argument.

An argument from fallacy is actually a formal fallacy according to wikipedia and not merely an informal one.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-14, 03:42 PM

An argument from fallacy is actually a formal fallacy according to wikipedia and not merely an informal one.

Formal logic courses were a prereq for EE, I'm aware of exactly what fallacies are.

However, merely reciting the name of one is not the same as communication. If you wish to actually communicate, one must point out where the error in logic occurs, and why it is fallacious. Merely shouting "strawman" because they didn't discuss exactly the same thing as you is deeply annoying.

Also, "according to wikipedia" makes me cringe a bit. Wikipedia is good starting place for knowledge. It is less good as "source for why I am right".

Lorsa

2013-09-14, 05:02 PM

Formal logic courses were a prereq for EE, I'm aware of exactly what fallacies are.

However, merely reciting the name of one is not the same as communication. If you wish to actually communicate, one must point out where the error in logic occurs, and why it is fallacious. Merely shouting "strawman" because they didn't discuss exactly the same thing as you is deeply annoying.

Also, "according to wikipedia" makes me cringe a bit. Wikipedia is good starting place for knowledge. It is less good as "source for why I am right".

Well that was the source I could easily access and I never used it as a source for why I am right more as a "I could be wrong but this is the information I have and where I got it from". What I wanted to point out was that claiming that someone's argument is false because they used a fallacy is also a fallcy. Which just makes it even more important to actually point out what exactly was wrong with someone's statement.

I've only taken a basic logic course myself, it didn't include argumentative fallacies. Also I think the course was a bit redundant since it had tons of formal ways to supposedly help you figure out if a statement is logical or not which I thought was just as easy even without the formality.

Tyndmyr

2013-09-14, 06:06 PM

Well that was the source I could easily access and I never used it as a source for why I am right more as a "I could be wrong but this is the information I have and where I got it from". What I wanted to point out was that claiming that someone's argument is false because they used a fallacy is also a fallcy. Which just makes it even more important to actually point out what exactly was wrong with someone's statement.

I've only taken a basic logic course myself, it didn't include argumentative fallacies. Also I think the course was a bit redundant since it had tons of formal ways to supposedly help you figure out if a statement is logical or not which I thought was just as easy even without the formality.

The formality becomes useful later. In EE, we got the pleasure of doing algebra with truth tables and what not. Really, it's just binary math, so if you can represent it formally, any operation that's possible in a base two number system is possible on logical values.

Usually it's an entirely different context than arguing though, and of course, you are correct that a false argument can be used in support of a true statement, a distinction that's often lost. Of course, once you get to Bayesian stuff, a lot of what you thought you knew mostly goes out the window.

I don't have anything against logic...it's immensely useful, but the way in which people sometimes misuse it can be incredibly frustrating. I fear this is not limited to this forum in any way, though. I've seen such misuses basically everywhere on the internet.

RPGuru1331

2013-09-14, 07:20 PM

I think that more recent accusations of the sentiment were unfairly colored by the tone of prior comments, as when I tried looking for recent posts regarding "yes, people have been saying that, right...wait...I thought there was a post like that here..." I couldn't find them.
Ah, I see.

Wait, why are trope names bad, but tossing out "fallacy of the golden mean" without explanation is just fine?
Hm, the internet doesn't generally understand a fallacy, so sure, I can explain. Although it's clear you don't need it, so...

The fallacy of the golden mean is essentially the attribution of equal validity to opposing viewpoints, and coming to the conclusion that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. Not only is it not necessarily true that opposing viewpoints have equal validity, but that doesn't then imply that the truth must be somewhere between them; Not only could the truth be further out from one of the positions (And thus, still-further from the other), but it could lie in an entirely different direction that has nothing to do with either opposing viewpoint at all. Absent evidence, you assumed that both spoken positions were 'extremes', implying the truth was in the middle, thus meaning it applies to what you said.

Willingness to explain is most important. The jargon of logic is still jargon.

I would ALSO be very ok with seeing a lot less of that.
Although you're entirely correct that actually establishing the fallacy requires more effort, that doesn't mean I'm going to do it. People trying to play the 'both sides are extreme' deal is particularly tiresome to me. I'm not going to attribute any lack of clarity to other people for it, though.

Indeed. I also find it somewhat hypocritical in regards to this topic. What exactly differentiates quoting fallacies without any further explanation from quoting tropes without any further explanation?
Fallacies are considerably more complex than tropes, and explaining them without being prompted definitely appears to be behavior that indicates being in love with the sound of your own voice. This notwithstanding that I didn't say "Always explain the trope when you use it," I said "Be prepared to explain yourself."

Razanir

2013-09-14, 07:25 PM

I agree, though I do have a bit of trouble with "Idiot Ball". Why a ball and not a stick? Does "ball" have some particular significance that I should be trying to figure out?

The image that comes to my mind:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4upyyA8qA1r8rzyno1_400.jpg

Theoboldi

2013-09-14, 07:51 PM

Fallacies are considerably more complex than tropes, and explaining them without being prompted definitely appears to be behavior that indicates being in love with the sound of your own voice. This notwithstanding that I didn't say "Always explain the trope when you use it," I said "Be prepared to explain yourself."

That is not what I claimed. I only said that I find it somewhat hypocritical to call someone out on a fallacy, which ends up confusing people who have never heard of this particular fallacy, when one of the main arguments brought forth against the usage of tropes in discussions and daily language is that they confuse readers who don't know them. Please explain how Fallacies being more complex causes this not to be hypocritical, because I honestly don't get the argument.

SaintRidley

2013-09-14, 08:46 PM

Which is the same thing as saying he's something of an Otaku (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Otaku), he fights with the power of Awesomeness By Analysis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomenessByAnalysis), and that he has both a Missing Mom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MissingMom) and Disappeared Dad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisappearedDad).

So he's an orphaned mega-fan of anime who has a great eye for an opponent's tells in combat.

More concise, and perfectly comprehensible. Fancy.

My problem with TV Tropes is that it doesn't really do anything. It's a ridiculous amount of work on description that does absolutely nothing to help with analysis. It's just a big list of facts and categories of things that really doesn't facilitate any meaningful theoretical development regarding the media it pertains to.

Furthermore, about half the tropes are so obvious that to codify them risks reifying or 'mummifying' the language involved, reducing it to a single static definition and robbing us, the language users, the ability to use it to create meaning. The others are so convoluted and unique as to make discussing them as tropes unnecessary.

Yes. It's pretty much absolutely useless for any serious analysis of literature or other media. So when I do read it it's pretty much a lark and with my brain firmly turned off.

jere7my

2013-09-14, 11:01 PM

That is not what I claimed. I only said that I find it somewhat hypocritical to call someone out on a fallacy, which ends up confusing people who have never heard of this particular fallacy, when one of the main arguments brought forth against the usage of tropes in discussions and daily language is that they confuse readers who don't know them. Please explain how Fallacies being more complex causes this not to be hypocritical, because I honestly don't get the argument.

I'd put it like this:

It is a problem if you're sending your audience to the dictionary or encylopedia a lot because you're using a lot of unfamiliar words or technical jargon. There's nothing wrong with making your readers stretch their brains once in a while, but you should know your audience; if they're not familiar with the long list of logical fallacies, or rhetorical devices like metonymy and chiasmus, it's probably a good idea to find a plainer way to speak, or gloss the terms you're using.

That said, we're using a shared language here, per the forum rules. Even if we don't all know what chiasmus and the Fallacy of the Golden Mean are, we do all agree that they are terms in our shared language. Collectively, we agree on the authority of the sources we can go to if we need to define them: dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks. That's a basic level of agreement we have to have to be able to communicate. Television Tropes, on the other hand, is not an agreed-upon authority; if a term only appears there, like "Draco in Leather Pants", people who don't acknowledge or aren't familiar with that authority are at a disadvantage.

We have other shared authorities here. Some internet terms (like "OP") are common to most forums on the internet. The 3rd Edition D&D ruleset is, to some degree, a shared authority in the OotS forum—posters can have a reasonable expectation of their readers knowing what a Magic Missile is. (I'd want people to gloss terms from 2nd or 4th Edition, though, since those aren't part of the vocabulary of the strip.) Random websites of internet definitions are only authoritative to those subgroups who choose to use them; that creates "in groups" and "out groups" on the forums, which seems like a bad idea to me.

Shorter version: using too many unfamiliar terms of any sort without defining them is probably a bad idea, for the sake of comprehensibility. But using unfamiliar terms from a source that only some posters recognize as a shared authority is worse.

Theoboldi

2013-09-14, 11:08 PM

I'd put it like this:

It is a problem if you're sending your audience to the dictionary or encylopedia a lot because you're using a lot of unfamiliar words or technical jargon. There's nothing wrong with making your readers stretch their brains once in a while, but you should know your audience; if they're not familiar with the long list of logical fallacies, or rhetorical devices like metonymy and chiasmus, it's probably a good idea to find a plainer way to speak, or gloss the terms you're using.

That said, we're using a shared language here, per the forum rules. Even if we don't all know what chiasmus and the Fallacy of the Golden Mean are, we do all agree that they are terms in our shared language. Collectively, we agree on the authority of the sources we can go to if we need to define them: dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks. That's a basic level of agreement we have to have to be able to communicate. Television Tropes, on the other hand, is not an agreed-upon authority; if a term only appears there, like "Draco in Leather Pants", people who don't acknowledge or aren't familiar with that authority are at a disadvantage.

We have other shared authorities here. Some internet terms (like "OP") are common to most forums on the internet. The 3rd Edition D&D ruleset is, to some degree, a shared authority in the OotS forum—posters can have a reasonable expectation of their readers knowing what a Magic Missile is. (I'd want people to gloss terms from 2nd or 4th Edition, though, since those aren't part of the vocabulary of the strip.) Random websites of internet definitions are only authoritative to those subgroups who choose to use them; that creates "in groups" and "out groups" on the forums, which seems like a bad idea to me.

Shorter version: using too many unfamiliar terms of any sort without defining them is probably a bad idea, for the sake of comprehensibility. But using unfamiliar terms from a source that only some posters recognize as a shared authority is worse.

I suppose I see your point, even though it does not change my opinion that RPGuru's action was highly hypocritical.
However, I do not agree. I'll leave it at that, since other people have already debated on your standpoint and I have no interest in pursuing this argument right now. I hope you don't think of me badly because of this. :smallsmile:

RPGuru1331

2013-09-15, 12:51 AM

When one of the main arguments brought forth against the usage of tropes in discussions and daily language is that they confuse readers who don't know them. Please explain how Fallacies being more complex causes this not to be hypocritical, because I honestly don't get the argument.
It's not hypocritical because I didn't make that argument. I said you need to be prepared to explain or you risk communicating poorly because they are jargon, not that jargon can't ever be used.

Theoboldi

2013-09-15, 01:13 AM

It's not hypocritical because I didn't make that argument. I said you need to be prepared to explain or you risk communicating poorly because they are jargon, not that jargon can't ever be used.

You still were communicating poorly by mentioning only a fallacy (in a quite insulting way, if I may add) instead of explaining what you thought was wrong with your oponents point. It really makes your point (which I think is that people should try and keep the meaning of their words clear and understandable) seem much less believable. This is not meant as an attack, but rather as an honest observation.

SaintRidley

2013-09-15, 01:35 AM

And who exactly disagrees with that? :smallconfused:
At this point I am confused about just what you are trying to accomplish here.

And you still were communicating poorly by mentioning only a fallacy instead of explaining what you thought was wrong with your oponents point. It really makes your point (which I think is that people should try and keep the meaning of their words clear and understandable) seem much less believable. This is not meant as an attack, but rather as an honest observation.

I think what RPGuru is getting at is the difference in willingness to explain. Most people who cite a fallacy, when asked, are willing to explain the fallacy in plain English.

People using extensive amounts of tropespeak have a perceived tendency to explain their tropespeak with even more tropespeak (this is, in part, due to the way TVTropes is constructed and its reliance on defining its tropes in terms of other tropes). That is, quite simply, less useful.

jere7my

2013-09-15, 01:38 AM

However, I do not agree. I'll leave it at that, since other people have already debated on your standpoint and I have no interest in pursuing this argument right now.

Fair enough.

I hope you don't think of me badly because of this. :smallsmile:

Nope, sorry, the engagement is off.

Theoboldi

2013-09-15, 01:43 AM

I think what RPGuru is getting at is the difference in willingness to explain. Most people who cite a fallacy, when asked, are willing to explain the fallacy in plain English.

People using extensive amounts of tropespeak have a perceived tendency to explain their tropespeak with even more tropespeak (this is, in part, due to the way TVTropes is constructed and its reliance on defining its tropes in terms of other tropes). That is, quite simply, less useful.

Of course. But that is a complaint he has about specific people. And quite frankly, it feels as though he is strawmanning quite many of his opponents (for lack of a better term) in this thread as such people, even though I am quite sure he actually respects them as equals. He has some good points, but he makes them look weak by insulting his opponents and doing things that at least look like hypocrisy, even if they aren't.

Nope, sorry, the engagement is off.

:smallfrown:

RPGuru1331

2013-09-15, 02:10 AM

You still were communicating poorly by mentioning only a fallacy (in a quite insulting way, if I may add)
Relying on fallacious thinking isn't a positive. If you want me to be sunshine and rainbows about it, you're out of luck.

And considering Hutt retracted it, I clearly didn't communicate that poorly. Further, I explained the term and its usage - Everything I said is entirely laid out in detail at this point. I'm growing rather amused at your insistence that I must be hypocritical because... why, exactly?

instead of explaining what you thought was wrong with your oponents point.
...Except I did. To the point where hutt509 immediately realized the problem.

Of course. But that is a complaint he has about specific people. And quite frankly, it feels as though he is strawmanning quite many of his opponents (for lack of a better term) in this thread as such people
He? At any rate, people were pretty specific about how it's lazy to not want to read TVTropes and learn its terms just because some fan of theirs was using them. I didn't straw man anything - I quoted it directly. Feel free to look again. It wasn't even a particularly minority position.

but he makes them look weak by insulting his opponents and doing things that at least look like hypocrisy, even if they aren't.
I make my arguments look weak to you because reasons, even though you concede you were in error? Well, I consider that acceptable fallout.

Theoboldi

2013-09-15, 02:42 AM

Must we really do the whole 'tearing your opponents posts apart sentence by sentence'-thing? I don't think I want to be involved in such a thing, and I especially don't want to dance around on whether you are hypocritical or not. Instead, I will only quote one single of your sentences whichhighlights why exactly I can't take your arguments seriously.

I'm growing rather amused at your insistence that I must be hypocritical because... why, exactly?

Every now and then you just slip sentences like these into your posts. You mock your opponents. Patronise them. Plain out insult them. Some people apparently can still take your arguments seriously, but I cannot do so when you display such behavior. I do not ask you to be 'sunshine and rainbows' about it, as you put it, but I expect a certain level of decency and mutual respect when discussing something.

Edit: In retrospect, I think I realise that you don't really care what other people think about you. You have already stated that it does not matter to you whether your argument suffers because of the way you appear to other people. At this point I will leave this conversation behind me, as there clearly is no chance of me finding common ground with you.

Remmirath

2013-09-15, 03:15 PM

I prefer it if people communicate clearly without resorting to acronyms, internet memes, general references to things that most people likely don't know of, or TV Tropes titles. There is no need to conserve space when typing out a post. The character limit is long enough that you are not going to exceed it in general conversation. There's also no need to write particularly quickly, because forums by their very nature are not a quick thing, as people will only come along and read the posts at a delay anyhow.

With TV tropes titles specifically, I have two main problems. The first is that the meaning of some are not immediately obvious and in any case I would rather that people simply say what they mean, and the second is that they often look silly and out of place in a conversation. Clearly this does not apply to any titles that are commonly used words or phrases (though even those will look out of place and odd in a conversation if capitalised).

I don't have a problem with the TV Tropes site. It is sometimes enjoyable to read. However, if what I wanted was to see what tropes people associated with a particular work, I would go there and see what had been listed. If I want an actual discussion concerning the work, I would prefer not to see the trope titles -- unless, of course, the basis of the discussion was determining what trope titles fit what characters or some such, which would clearly be an exception.

As some examples, "Magnificent Bastard" and similarly obvious trope titles, when not capitalised, can fit into the conversation fine. They're descriptive enough that they can in fact simply serve as a description. Capitalising them looks rather silly, however. Things such as "Crowning Moment of Awesome" just sound silly to begin with and in that particular case is actually longer than typing "it was awesome" or "his finest moment" or what have you, so that's fairly pointless as well as inelegant. "Idiot Ball" does somewhat get the point across, but I'd far rather see someone say that someone is acting like an idiot now for plot-related reasons.

Yes, almost all of them can be discerned from context, but why add that extra layer when you could just write out what you mean? Some are also rather inscrutable when you have little to no knowledge of the characters or situations in the title.

Basically I'm in favour of people just saying what they mean, in terms that the average English-speaking person (be it natively or simply to the level that they would be feeling comfortable posting on an English forum in the first place) can be expected to understand. I won't stop reading a thread just because it contains an unnecessary and to me obnoxious amount of acronyms and/or TV Tropes references. I won't discount the things that those people are saying. It will, however, bother me somewhat. If I were to have to look up a word in the dictionary to understand the post it wouldn't bother me nearly as much, because I'd feel I had at least learned something valuable, whereas if I have to try to dig through the internet to figure out some internet meme I'll feel like I wasted that amount of time.