Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
400 is the maximum right now.
Don't go there. Not even to mock it. Just...don't. The things I've seen, man...
I think the Tsun/Yan would be perfectly fine if they weren't so hardwired into vague definitions and specific gimmicky character archetypes like TYPE A and TYPE B and what not. The fact that a simple one-word definition was made for them besides Bipolar Bitch or Mezmerized Psycho, and I generally like those words. It's just the fact that there's too much involved with them (like Cookie Cutter Cuties and....generally ANY trope that has to deal with female characters for some odd reason), is what bugs me about them.
It occurs so much I don't even think we should list examples of it unless it's intentionally used and brought up somehow in the series, since wearing long socks, and the watchers being attracted to them, is too common for this kind of thing....
What does that bring the "number of tropers who jumped ship to SA" count to?
Fair enough; I totally understand (even if some members here do not), even though I don't share your taste for this form of humor.
And I also know that y'all aren't demonspawn from hell and are pretty cool guys who retsupuraes videos and doesn't afraid of translating indie games by EasyGameStation.
(I happen to be playing Recettear at the moment, in fact. AND ALL Y'ALL PEOPLE POSTING HERE ARE KEEPING ME FROM IT ARGH)
@Vicas > TVT often treats tropes as the be all, end all of analysis: by pointing out a recurring theme you are analyzing it. Mods have gone on record saying that TVT is about cataloging, categorizing, as if you can do that and call it analysis. And frankly this is just untrue. Real analysis requires discussion about why an author did what they did.
TV Tropes does have tropes for creator intention, and many tropes that seem to simply catalog instances of something actually exist because people started doing them on purpose for various plot, setting, and character design reasons.
@Vicas > It requires understanding of the cultural context that surrounds the work's creation. It requires introspection, to see how what they did relates to you and your own human experience. It gives you a deeper understanding of the work as a whole and hopefully teaches you something about yourself and your own life experience, too. That's the whole point; it's why we teach literature in school in the first place.
I totally agree. However, that doesn't mean that that introspection and analysis requires the same approach as teaching literature in school. In that way, and in reply to the below quoted text...
@Vicas > Honestly, TVT used to have some of this. It would explain where a trope first came up and the reasons it existed. However, as time has worn on pages that contain this have become rarer, in favor of more tropes that are literally just "yup, this happened in more than one work." And so many things are so banal and inconsequential that it's impossible to read into them at all, but TVT gives those things just as much credence as major themes and recurring character archetypes. The reason this makes me call TVT anti-intellectual is that putting works into neat little boxes only really works well for a narrow subset of works, and when you try to apply it to something more complicated, it causes you to lose some parts that can't just be written into a neat category. Is there a trope that explains how Catcher in the Rye will make a completely different impact on someone based on when in their age? Can tropes really get across the hilarity of Catch-22, make a troper feel bad for Lt. Slothrop's situation and attempts to escape fate in Gravity's Rainbow, convey the horror Lovecraft was trying to get across?
...I'd say that TV Tropes is more of a tool than a be-all-and-end-all of analysis. For starters, analysis is pretty subjective and often coloured by our own real-life experiences as well as our own history of creative work consumption. TV Tropes isn't here to say that such-and-such is THE definitive interpretation of a Shakespeare play or a Konami game. It's here to offer analysis tools, suggest ideas and perspectives, and let people bounce ideas around. At least, that's what I see it being for.
Now, there is a danger of people getting too reliant on trope-based thinking, and trying to shoehorn tropes hamfistedly into their interpretations of works. I don't think this is a good idea, but I would say that the debate that springs sooner or later from these actions does have a positive impact in our understanding how cultural and creative understanding vary over time and space.
@Vicas > Classic books often give us abstract concepts to wrangle with, and tropes just can't explain these very well.
I disagree. First, tropes are often pretty abstract concepts anyway. But more importantly, modern creative work also gives us abstract concepts to wrangle with. Not to mention all sorts of possible alternative interpretations...
And classic lit, back in the day, was pop lit itself. I doubt that a lot of people who went to see Shakespeare's plays at the Globe had philosophical issues and deep story themes on the mind.
The only reason your statement here seems true is because there's been more analysis of classic lit...including, ironically, more people trying to shoehorn themes into interpretations of classic lit.
@Vicas > You can't use tropes to tell your friend why this amazing book helped you come to terms with your parent's break up, or showed you you weren't the only one who acted like a stupid teenager, and felt what you felt.
I agree that tropes are not the be-all-and-end-all of literary analysis. However, I _have_ found them to be useful tools for analysis. And especially for design.
For example, what if I'm designing a game, and I want to give the player that emotional drive that I experienced in a particularly heart-wrenching scene in Cave Story. Well, the Player Punch trope page is a useful listing of how some other designers did similar things, and this can help advise me on how I might script such a scene.
@Vicas > All it helps you do is play I Spy with works. Is anything really gained from that? It doesn't teach you how to write. Tropes aren't even about writing, tropes are the result of writing. Writing with tropes explicitly in mind is stifling, because everything you write has to be a nice little lego structure. It's just not good for your writing.
TV Tropes was never meant as a teaching tool. :P
You're totally right in that writing with tropes explicitly in mind is a very bad thing. One possible result is what we typically call "pandering", in fact.
And by the way, welcome to IJBM!
----
@GLORIOUSLeader > Fixed that for you. Right now, the worst pages are probably the Victorious, iCarly, Wizards of Waverly Place, and MLP: FIM pages. Dear God, the creep factor of shoehorning sexuality into a show about ponies. What is wrong with you.
I see it has been a good decision on my part not to touch the MLP fandom with a ten-foot pole.
Except in the context of Youtube Poop. All bets are off there. Though they haven't produced particularly good poops yet. Except for that one that's MLPFIM scenes dubbed with a video of people abusing Moonbase Alpha's text-to-speech, set to Super Mario Bros. 2 music.
@INUH > I definitely agree that not enough people bother with the analysis aspect of troping in favor of cataloguing.
Perhaps I'll have to look into this analysis feature further.
I've always been cataloguing stuff myself, even before the site existed, so the site was a pretty natural match for my interests in cataloguing.
That said, yes, cataloguing can go a little overboard, when you have people making a big deal about, say, a background character in an animé series who happens to be a girl with glasses. Then again, if the fandom is bothering to make a big deal about it...that kinda invokes a different trope, this time an audience reaction phenomenon.
@Juan_Carlos > I dislike that they claim to do [analysis].
Oh, TVT does claim that? Oh well, then I disagree with that claim.
@Neo_Crimson > As for the lack of analysis, Tv Tropes does have an analysis namespace, but it's woefully under-used. I think that's mostly due to people being lazy and the looseness of the wiki in general.
Hunh. I REALLY oughta look into it.
@INUH > I think one thing that would at least improve TV Tropes would be to start a campaign, based from a special efforts thread on TV Tropes, to make better use of the Analysis namespace and another to work on good articles for...not really sure what the phrase to use would be, but if I say "works of literary merit," I imagine you'll all know what I mean.
That sounds like a great idea.
Let me know about the thread and I'll stop by sometime, if you start such an effort.
Though I can't say I'll be able to contribute much...I've got a handful of YKTTWs that I've been neglecting already...
@Scrye2 > @Kino: I tried to get TV Tropes out of their usual hugbox attitude, but I gots banneded.
I don't think the problem is the hugbox attitude anyway. Adding more bile wouldn't solve problems like people shoehorning tropes and stuff.
@GLORIOUSLeader > What bothers me is no matter how good our analysis of any work is, it could not ever parallel Uncyclopedia's analysis of "go eat shit fuckers."
You mean this?
...uh...oh, wow.
several people > OTC
LOL, OTC
edit: @Color Printer, from the SA Thread: "Related to the work on a troper's un-made work, there are also a few
quotes on a few quote pages by one guy (a troper, surprise) that are
from a work of his that doesn't event exist yet. I almost removed them
but I figured they'd get re-added, considering they'd been there a
while. They were awful quotes, too, I wish I remembered what pages they
were on."
Actually, you would have been correct to do so. Unpublished works are not protected under No Such Thing As Notability, and should not be used on the main articles at all.
By "published" here I mean "exists in some meaningful way that allows other editors to review it" whether that is in physical paper form or somewhere on the internet where it can be openly viewed. So anyone who does see these types of works being listed can remove them, and if they get added back in, report them on Ask The Tropers for mod intervention.
To be fair, Madoka Magica is just a moe fanservice anime, or at least that's the impression I get from the fans."Fakkuheddo-kun Took A Level In Badass when he told the cashier he didn't want to supersize his order, because up until this point, he's been sort of a Shrinking Violet and had trouble saying no to anyone who pressured him into anything. Also counts as a Crowning Moment Of Awesome"
all they get in response are
"OMG I loved that part too! *Off to the gush thread to gush about you!*"
instead of people being able to tell them that that is a horrible fucking example, and that the character is still a bitch.
Because negativity hurts feelings, and criticism is inherently negative. Can't have criticism in our hugbox, now can we?