I am not ready to quit TV Tropes yet

Elbeem

You don't have to link them if you don't care to, as unless it's some official statement of policy by one of the founders it likely won't change my opinion. I just do not agree with the criticism that TV Tropes fails at literary analysis when I see no evidence of the intent for TV Tropes to be a literary analysis site as opposed to a cataloging site like it claims to be on the Home Page.

Even if Madrugada (for example), thinks cataloging can help in literary analysis, that does not mean that such analysis is the intent of the site. Barring an official mention of site policy on an administrivia page, I see no reason to believe that the mission is something other than what is listed on the home page.

edited to add: That's not to say that analysis is not a good thing to have, and I'm hoping that Inuh's special project can help us get more of it. I just do not feel that it is part of the core mission.

Nova

Took the easy way out.

If I am wrong, Meeble, I will apologize.

MillerCross

Then how about all those articles detailing where tropes come from? And what's with all the articles explaining meta fictional impact and the like? Because that's analysis. Whether it's good or bad, it is a different matter, but it is analysis.

And it also causes the obvious problem that the site has a beautiful catalogue and supposedly "celebrates fiction". But how can you celebrate fiction when all you do is look at its different parts, as if it was a corpse, rather than trying to understand what each part does and what it tries to convey.

Elbeem

@Cygan: Likewise.

@Juan: As I said, I think that the act of cataloging tropes does lead to some amount of analysis being done as part of the process. However, if I am right in that real professional analysis is not the core function of the site, judging the site as having failed its mission based on the quality of its real professional analysis is incorrect.

MillerCross

As I said, I think that the process of cataloging tropes does lead to some amount of analysis being done as part of the process.

If we take analysis to mean "the examination of context and meaning of a fictional work", then no, the site fails. Partially because the site is starting to suppress this content 

For example, during INUH's project to curbstomp gushing in the wiki, Fast Eddie explicitly said that such content as reception of a work is invalid till proven to be in universe. How are you supposed to properly catalogue metafictional tropes if said content is invalid? 

That is the real problem of the wiki, in my opinion. It's trying to "celebrate fiction", yet it celebrates it by only decomposing it and never looking at the parts. Not analysing it. Whether it is not the site's goal to become a viable literary analysis resource is just adding salt to the wound. But as it is, its current goal of being a celebration of fiction has been a throughly failed one. 

Elbeem

Can you give me an example of something you consider to be a metafictional trope? I haven't been following the thread you're referring to.

I would argue that the site does look at the parts, as that is a part of the cataloging process. Now you can argue that it does not go the extra step of taking those parts and examining how they are weaved together into a cohesive whole, and you would be right. That is something that is left to the reader to determine, as going further in depth in that direction becomes more about the opinions of the editor writing it... which works well for things like the analysis tab where distinct interpretations of the work can be labeled, but interferes with the intent of the main page to provide a listing of how the work uses its component parts.

In regards to your last paragraph, you're basically saying that because the site does not celebrate fiction in the way you feel it should, then it fails at celebrating fiction. That assumes that no one else can have a different interpretation of how one can go about celebrating fiction, and ignores the fact that TV Tropes method does in fact work for many of its readers. If you said "The site fails to meet my needs in regards to the celebration of fiction", I would have no room to argue.

Nova

Can you give me an example of something you consider to be a metafictional trope? I haven't been following the thread you're referring to.

Many of the Audience Reaction tropes?

MillerCross

In regards to your last paragraph, you're basically saying that because the site does not celebrate fiction in the way you feel it should, then it fails at celebrating fiction. That assumes that no one else can have a different interpretation of how one can go about celebrating fiction, and ignores the fact that TV Tropes method does in fact work for many of its readers. If you said "The site fails to meet my needs in regards to the celebration of fiction", I would have no room to argue.

Notice that I said my opinion, meeble.

Elbeem

@Juan: That you did! I apologize for missing that. In that case I retract my objection, while clarifying that I and others will have a difference in opinion in regards to how successful the site is in its celebration, due to the varying needs of the reader in question.

@Cygan: Ah, if you're referring to the Audience Reaction tropes, then I don't really understand what Juan is referring to in regards to interfering with that process. We do catalog those tropes, we simply put them in their own tab so that they do not detract from the in-universe tropes. 

edited to add: For what it's worth, Totemic Hero and Manga Maniac's views in Cygan's thread are pretty close to how I have interpreted the mission of the site.

Nyarly

Call me an avatar of pure madness, but I like the wiki as it is now. As I just said in CA's thread, it is for cataloging tropes and nothing more than that. I'm fine with that, since I don't want more myself. It may be shallow, but I'm not interested in analyzations.

Of course, if you want more... well, then TV Tropes is probably not the site for you.

Nova

Ah, if you're referring to the Audience Reaction tropes, then I don't really understand what Juan is referring to in regards to interfering with that process.

It was just a guess.

Of course, if you want more... well, then TV Tropes is probably not the site for you.

I am starting to get that feeling. Or rather, this is reinforcing that feeling.

Nova

Okay, this has just confirmed my decision.

I am leaving the Wiki. I am spending too much time trying to help out something that is not benefiting me in any way. The last reason I had to stay there- trying to use it as a tool to analyze media- has gone kerplonk, as I discovered it's just an exercise in cataloguing stuff for no particular reason except to just catalogue more stuff.

So, yay for free time.

Elbeem

While I agree with most of your first paragraph, Nyarly, I will add that TV Tropes can be more as long as there are enough editors dedicated to wanting to take it in the direction in question, and that direction does not interfere with the core mission. Something like Wild Mass Guessing is a good example of something that does not fit with the core mission of the site, but is something additional that the site can provide its readers because there are enough editors interested in pursuing it.

Something like literary analysis can certainly become similar, if those who are interested in it keep pursuing it.

@Cygan: If that's what you feel is best for you, I certainly won't try to convince you otherwise. I will simply repeat that Analysis is something that can most certainly be pursued on TV Tropes if you and others are interested in it.

Counterclock

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

This is what Tvtropes is.

The_Edge

The free time stock market just crashes and you are out millions.

This is what TV Tropes is.

Nova

I will simply repeat that Analysis is something that can most certainly be pursued on TV Tropes if you and others are interested in it. 

The Analysis namespace would be good, but ultimately, the majority of the users on the site don't even seem to care about this.

We had what, five contributors to that thread? Three of whom were from here? And the thread has not been posted in for days despite my efforts to provide information, because... I don't even know why.

And when I made further threads talking about analyses, only one thread received anything approaching discussion of the topic. Again, by the same contributors as above. Linked to from here.

There is just no point in it if the majority of the users of the site are content to ignore the reasons behind it all.

Elbeem

I would say that it's too early in the process to determine how well the Analysis tab will take off, as many users either don't know that it exists, or (like me) don't really know how to use it properly.

But I do agree with you that at this time, TV Tropes does not provide much of a focus on Literary Analysis, which goes back to my original point that such a focus was not the core intent of the site in the first place.

If this fact does prevent you from being able to enjoy contributing to the site, then it will be sad not seeing you around there anymore, but I certainly wish you well in your future endeavors.

Nova

If this fact does prevent you from being able to enjoy contributing to the site, then it will be sad not seeing you around there anymore, but I certainly wish you well in your future endeavors.

It does. I wish it didn't, but it does.

Listing something for the sake of listing it is just pointless. And, well, I'd like my contributions to actually be useful for something, you know?

MillerCross

@Juan: That you did! I apologize for missing that. In that case I retract my objection, while clarifying that I and others will have a difference in opinion in regards to how successful the site is in its celebration, due to the varying needs of the reader in question.

To exapnd on that, I do admit that I hold an opinion, and it is OK to like the wiki, but it's just not my thing and I feel cheated, because I feel that it could be my thing, yannow?

Still, I feel like rationalizing how I feel about the wiki, because fuck it, free time.

@Cygan: Ah, if you're referring to the Audience Reaction tropes, then I don't really understand what Juan is referring to in regards to interfering with that process. We do catalog those tropes, we simply put them in their own tab so that they do not detract from the in-universe tropes. 

I was more thinking of tropes such as Shout Out. These are tropes of the intertextual kind, where the trend is not detectable on the work per se, but it's not traced to the audience either. The trend is based on the intertextuallity/correlation between two works, therefore metafictional as it is not bound by the fiction of the work, and it refers to a world outside of said fiction 

Also, I'm just going by what Eddie said. He said, specifically, that work pages should not have their general reception written in because...well, he said it causes trouble. I don't see it, but whatever. My point is simply that reactions affect the market and the market affects how fiction is produced in the future. As such, they should be taken into account if we're about fiction and not just a catalogue of trends (And even then...well, I'll revisit this point later)

Of course, if you want more... well, then TV Tropes is probably not the site for you.

Puhretty much.

While I agree with most of your first paragraph, Nyarly, I will add that TV Tropes can be more as long as there are enough editors dedicated to wanting to take it in the direction in question, and that direction does not interfere with the core mission. Something like Wild Mass Guessing is a good example of something that does not fit with the core mission of the site, but is something additional that the site can provide its readers because there are enough editors interested in pursuing it.

I've always disliked WMG myself. I've felt that by now they have become just a joke, rather than any actual intent at guessing and theorizing the future of a work.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that if it doesn't interfere with the wiki, then it would be OK to pursue. The problem is that we're getting more and more restricted by the constant new rulings as we go by. Cataloguin tropes is the goal of the wiki, true, but analysing them, realizing what they are, where they come from, why the came about, etc etc should be a priority of such a catalogue.

Think of it like a museum. A museum doesn't just hold relics and stamps them with a name, does it? That'd be relatively worthless. What it does do, though, is attach a history to them, explain to the interested and keep it for the sake of preservation. I feel that TvT's insistence on separating reality's impact on fiction via the YMMV tab has detracted from this aspect of the wiki, and as such, I feel that its value as a catalogue is lost.

The fact that said analysis and study of tropes is also separated is just salt on the proverbial wound, if you ask me.

@Cygan: If that's what you feel is best for you, I certainly won't try to convince you otherwise. I will simply repeat that Analysis is something that can most certainly be pursued on TV Tropes if you and others are interested in it.

Notice the conditional. It is important. As cygan mentioned, there's a significant lack of interest. Partly because most editors are just OK with having a catalogue of media trends without their context, history or meaning throughout time. 

I know I've got massively ninja'd while writing this. And as such, I'll reply to at least one of the ninjaing posts.

Elbeem

@Cygan: Well as I said, some people may be listing those things for the sake of listing them, but that is something that varies from editor to editor. I catalog these things for my own reasons, and would assume that you would do likewise for whatever reasons are most important to you.

I think that the lack of a single declared primary reason for making or using the catalog is a strength of TV Tropes, as opposed to a detriment. It allows the editors and readers to get what they want out of the process.

But yes, if you feel that lack makes it pointless for you, I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want to continue doing it. I too wish that wasn't the case, but these things are beyond our control, and I can only say that I respect your decision.

Edit @Juan: I can certainly see where you're coming from there, but again we disagree in regards to whether what you feel should be the overall priority of the site should be the case for everyone. Right now we do provide a history of a tropes usage through the listing of examples, we do collect and preserve those items we've cataloged for future reference, and we explain to the audience how those items are used in their individual works.

How all of that is used by the editors and readers is not set in stone, because every single person will have different priorities in that regard. TV Tropes is very versatile in meeting those priorities as long as there are enough editors interested in pursuing them, and those priorities don't interfere with the core mission of making the catalog in the first place.

I do recognize that such a versatility does mean that TV Tropes may be lacking for those who are looking for a specialized look in their priority of choice, and understand if that means that for those particular readers, the site may not be for them.

MillerCross

Impenetrable wall of texts are such fun to write...

--pleasured sigh--

Want me to do another one?

Elbeem

Hey, I think it's clear to anyone who has read this thread that I too am fond of text walls. So if you're so inclined, knock yourself out buddy. ;D

MillerCross

I had a bigger post in mind, but I felt it was too redundant. Instead, I will just address a little something which I think deserves addressing.

Right now we do provide a history of a tropes usage through the listing of examples, we do collect and preserve those items we've cataloged for future reference, and we explain to the audience how those items are used in their individual works.

Not really. What we do is catalogue the tropes' examples and maybe elaborate on some of the most prominent ones in terms of the wiki. An example from Evangelion is bound to have more words than an example from, say, One Hundred Years of Solitude. 

I'm not complaining about Wiki Groaning. Or at least, I don't think it is the problem here per se. The problem here is that the wiki has priorities, which is the cataloguing of tropes, and the understanding of the most prominent works within the wiki itself. And only those get an elaboration, and even then, they're hardly historically relevant to the history of media and fiction. 

In theory, yeah, you'd be right. But in practice...not so much.

Elbeem

Oh, I agree with you in regards to the coverage of more historical works. The problem is, the only way to solve it is for fans of One Hundred Years Of Solitude to get on the ball and expand on what we already have listed.

There is no specific priority given by the site to any particular work. There is only an aggregate of the individual focuses of each editor and the works they edit. Since I have never read One Hundred Years Of Solitude, I cannot effectively contribute in the regard... but I can expound upon my knowledge of Evangelion.

That is simply the reality that one must deal with in a user driven wiki that is open to anyone to edit.

Edited to add: And again, I want to mention that I recognize how that reality could lead one to believe the site is not for them, and I respect that. I want to make it clear that my participation in this thread has not been meant to convince anyone to stay on TV Tropes if they feel that they shouldn't. It has simply been meant to explain how I see things differently, in hopes of providing an alternate point of view.

MillerCross

It was an example thrown at hand, but my point was the fact that beyond a few examples from said series, many examples don't get an elaboration beyond the fact that "X happened. It is this trope. Here's why it happened in-universe"

There's no why out-of-universe. And I feel that should be important.

Elbeem

I can see where you're coming from with that. That is really where the use of the Analysis tab would come in, and I do hope that it takes off in the future to provide the kind of content you're looking for.

Central Avenue

CA's thread

Whoa, freaked me out for a minute there.

Vorpy

99%

really? or is this a hyperbolic exaggeration?

MillerCross

Fairly sure it is an exaggeration.

Elbeem

Yes, it was an exaggeration. You can replace "99%" with "a very large number" if it helps. I would get into the logic behind the statement, but we've pretty much moved past that part of the conversation at this point.

The point was that most visitors will be exposed to the home page when it comes to determining the site's mission, as opposed to something a moderator might have said on a particular forum thread.