TVTropes Successor Project

MadassAlex

Or... it defeats the purpose to impose more restrictive standards?

---

This one.

Nova

How so, then?

MadassAlex

No Such Thing As Notability.

A part of TVT's core tenants is user contribution. And most user contribution is moderated by other users rather than actual staff, so there's very little restriction outside the obvious things; stuff like pornographic content, hate speech and other directly confronting user entries. A part of the entire point is the lack of restriction.

It's even on the front page, which says everything. A website's front page usually contains a summary or mission statement of the website itself. The fact that No Such Thing As Notability is referenced directly in the opening paragraphs of the website essentially makes it a core, immutable element.

TVT's front page also includes other guidelines concerning the tone and nature of the content which is entirely different to what this new website is aiming for. Not that I wish to discredit an alternate take on the concept at all. But it's very different to TVT, which makes its core tenants extremely clear as soon as you hit the website.

MillerCross

Dear motherfucking God, I leave for one day and this thread explodes. >_<

You're the only one bringing up TvT, Juan. Not to be rude, but cut it out. If you don't want people bitching about TvT, stop bitching about people bitching about TvT. Have a little faith, for once.

I was just repeating what Sunshine asked me to do back when I joined. Seemed in good form to do so. 

Dude, where the fuck did you go? I was enjoying your presence on the TVTF helping to disperse the stupid misinformation on climate change.

AOD go tired of the userbase and of the fact that every name was japanese based. He said clearly that if the wiki didn't establish rules for editing quickly, we'd have to do lots of clean up sooner or later. 

Gotta concur with him.

Also, someone mentioned the idea that this is "going to fail" because we're not gonnabe as popular as TvTropes. As anyone who has read the thread proper, they know automatically that the only reason we've called ourselves as a succesor to TvT is because we were inspired by it, whether we like it or not. We're nothing but an spiritual successor, but taking our own interpretation of what the site should be. Also, we plan for it to be a thing of its own

RE: Elitism: Someone mentioned a page ago that the thing was born out of spite and it shows. Not gonna lie there, it is a worry of mine that the goons can be too smug. But these guys know their literature. Also, while we're starting with literature, it's mostly in order to quickly establish that literature matters too, and to avoid the lack of content on it, which is what made us rally and join in the first place. We intend to add to other mediums and works as we go along (In fact, Evangelion was mentioned before)

MadassAlex

My concern was never a lack of alternative (roffle) literature or media, but emphasis on canonical literature that overshadows other things simply because it's canonical.

Nova

A part of TVT's core tenants is user contribution. And most user contribution is moderated by other users rather than actual staff, so there's very little restriction outside the obvious things; stuff like pornographic content, hate speech and other directly confronting user entries. A part of the entire point is the lack of restriction.

I would not say that is a good thing, but okay.

vandro

Reading DrSunshine's last post, I gotta disagree vehemently with the thought that videogames will most likely have no place in that project. I can see he wants to start with literature, drama and film, but it does strike me of elitism (the post, not the project). Videogames are an art form and as such would ideally have a place in this new site.

MillerCross

My concern was never a lack of alternative (roffle) literature or media, but emphasis on canonical literature that overshadows other things simply because it's canonical. 

It's a reactionary prject and many of the project members are literature majors. What do you expect them to do? To these people, To Kill a Mockingbird is as important emotionally as Evangelion was to the average troper. I don't see what's so bad about this and how it is different from TvTropes focusing in the projects that the majority of the members are interested. 

Also, it's been a while since I've read the thread. Lemme see AOD's post. 

vandro

Also, no fan fiction ever? What about historical fiction? It's the same thing, I can guess they do mean modern, internet-culture fanworks, but historical fiction is fan fiction no matter how you look at it, it's got OCs and all.

MadassAlex

I've joined in order to discuss the potential of the project, but it does seem like it could suffer badly from elitism. While TVT's lack of restrictions might not be a cup all want to drink from, swinging it towards the other extreme seems like the worse choice to me.

^^ I expect them to be unbiased irrespective of their investment in particular works. As intellectuals, I expect them to be above medium and genre distinction when it comes to merit.

^ I'll say this for TVT: how it interprets some works brings a smile to my face. Dante's Inferno as Bible fanfiction? Clever, worth a chuckle and makes a bit of a point about both writing at the time and fanfiction all at once.

vandro

The fist known fan sequel as such is the government sponsored Aeneid!

MillerCross

^^ I expect them to be unbiased irrespective of their investment in particular works. As intellectuals, I expect them to be above medium and genre distinction when it comes to merit. 

You say this as if we won't tackle any other works simply because we start with an emphasis on the stuff we know. What would you prefer? A literary critic who hasn't watched, say, Hellsing analysing it, or a literary critic who actually knows To Kill A Mockingbird analysing it and bringing in his opinion?

Because, let's face it, they are intellectuals, but they are also specialized intellectuals. And I'm the same. I can't write for shit about anime or manga or comics beyond my simple fanboyism. But I can write about film in an analytical fashion. And that's what I intend to write about.

RE: Fanfiction: The point is that we wanna filter most of the works that can't give us much fuel to write about. Also, to be blunt, I honestly don't care about the latest "X/X OTP ZOMG" fic. If we're going to write about fanfiction, I think that the criteria we'd use is "fanfiction worth writing about"

Referring to the online kind, no? Historical fiction has the advantage of it being A) A finished work being in an unchangeable form (Book is published, whereas a fic can be delted from a fic site.

vandro

You seem to have missed the point of my comment. Fan fiction as a term is what I am talking about, historical fiction is a type of fan fiction, but not all fan fiction is historical fiction, internet age fanworks is a type of fan fiction, but not all fan fiction is internet age fanworks but people assume they are the same. I am basically nitpicking the term itself, not the reasoning, I can agree with a no online fanworks rule.

MadassAlex

I think it's fair that they start with works they most know and love. I don't think it's fair that video games will be excluded, which is so far the biggest tip that this is overtly informed by elitism.

I mean, I can potentially run with everything else. A more focused look at tropes and works? A-okay. A foundation in English literary canon? Fine, if only so there's common ground to begin with. Intellectual atmosphere? M'kay. The requirement of expertise? Asking a little much, but I see why they're gunning for it, depending of their definition of expertise.

But it's all adding up, you know? I get the feeling that rather than trying to create an environment that'll be conducive to that kind of thing, they're enforcing it. And dismissing video games and their tropes as relevant contributions is, well, tunnel-visioned. And as I said before, I'd expect intellectuals to be more intellectualy versatile than that.

It sounds kind of horrible, but at this stage, this appears to be more like a club than anything else.

EDIT: Oh, and no "pulp fiction", which is a derisive term for many kinds of genre fiction. I do not even have words.

MillerCross

Well, what the hell else do you expect from a project started by a bunch of dissidents? All we can do is steer them up into a direction that actually creates a viable project worth defending and creating. 

I don't agree with everthing they say, but I do agree that starting with an emphasis on classical works is the right way. Why? Because if we start with stuff that it's not worth of our attention, then we'll have to clean all the consequences of doing just that. 

After all, this whole project is a reaction to NSTAN. If you believe in it, then this project is not for you on principle, really. 

vandro

I am finding it hilarious that you  defend it by using the "what did you expect" excuse, which would be equally applicable justification for TvTropes policies. it seems to me that you are less a member of the project wholeheartedly and more like you are deciding for the lesser of two evils. I do concur on which is the lesser evil, though.

MadassAlex

^^ I don't disagree with beginning with works that have wider cultural and academic relevance. I don't even necessarily disagree with removing NSTAN outside of the context of TVT, but I think they've done a u-turn when they should have turned left. There's gunning for some kind of notability, and then there's the restrictions they suggest, you know?

MillerCross

^^ Puhretty much. I do not think these guys are ur salvation or what have you, but I think that this project can be more interesting than TvT. It just needs to have some kinks solved. I don't think AOD is planning to be a long term admin, so we have that on our side. But if we get Pattersong or Hazmatsam, then that's it, I'm jumping out quickier than you could say "Fuck off"

^ Like i said, I agree with you. I just don't think it's as big or as unsoveable a problem as you seem to think it is. 

MadassAlex

I've made it pretty clear already, I guess, but I find the lesser evil to be the one that is more inclusive, which will by definition garner more diversity of thought.

MillerCross

In theory? Yes. In practice? Well, look at the wiki and tell me that's true.

MadassAlex

I'm seeing a flawed wiki, but nothing that's atrocious or beyond help, really. TVT isn't a bastion of literary analysis or anything, but it's sure as hell entertaining.

Keep in mind that I'm someone who originally got into TVT for the fun and the wonderful wikiwalks.

MillerCross

--shrug--

I just see what I always saw back when I joined the forums and got linked around the wiki. A boring trawl of pretentious nerd stuff. 

Vorpy

For example, compare the 29,000 character article on the famous and influential novel HuckleBerry Finn, which was extremely influential for its' time and had a profound influence on American culture, to the 89,000 character article on the fetish-based web universe Pokegirls.

Wikigroaning lol

Don't forget Huckleberry Finn is just very notable realistic fiction that doesn't have many tropes to work with it, and Pokegirls was a easily-hateable creepy fanservice world-building project with around 10+ creepy fucks helping build it.

I still don't understand why people bring up the whole "One good book vs. an entire series I particulary target" when that's not even a fair target. Of course a 26 episode anime is going to have more tropes than a book.

MillerCross

Well, I do agree that wiki groaning is a bad argument, but the comparison is against something that is..well, really questionable. I mean, really, what's the point on having a page on Pokegirls? And a page so...biased at that. 

Vivi

^There is a page on it, because it is a work. A rather large work at that.

Yeah. The fact that FLCL, a 6 episode anime from Gainax that is a ridiculous Parody of almost everything NGE stands for, and was made to be a fun breather after the release of NGE, has more tropes than say...To Kill a Mockingbird? Not surprising at all.

Unfortunately, there are only so many tropes you can squeeze out of To Kill A Mockingbird.

MillerCross

^There is a page on it, because it is a work. A rather large work at that.

I know the reasoning behind it. I just don't agree with said reasoning. 

Also, the problem, I think is that work pages are too focused on tropes. But I know that by now, that's asking TvTropes to not be TvTropes, which is why I decided to stop contributing, as I'm not interested in what they do. 

Vorpy

Literary tropes do exist, I just don't know enough about the tropes to properly write them, mind you.

There is SinglePageEmphasis, where the writer will leave a statement, word or phrase all by itself on a page as a method of emphasizing that point of the story, or to give a feeling of isolation to the reader.

There is DespondentElipsis, where a character will be written with a lot of elipsises in their speech to convey a forboding inhuman feeling about what they say, or to make the character look like they are unsure of what they are saying or having troubles trying to convey their point.

There was also one I found, which didn't haven enough examples, AMementoLeftUnfinished, where two characters are busy enjoying something with each other, but are interrupted to go off and do something. Only one comes back alive, and the activity they were busy doing that they left behind was never finished. That is a very touching moment that happens at times, and I haven't been able to find a trope for it on TVT. It happened in Kick Ass with Hit Girl and her father (the slushies/shakes), and Vandread (Hibiki and Gascogne with the card game).

Vivi

That's a good trope Vorps. I would contribute if I could think of examples.

Vorpy

And another thing I enjoyed alot about TVT was their laconic pages for important things like Strawmanning, Bellisario's Maxim, Death of the Author, Post-Modernism, Chekov's Gun, The Worf Effect, and Sunk Cost Fallacy.

These terms were somewhat hard for me to understand because of how verbose they were, but those pages that describe it in one mean sentence was very helpful in understanding it easier.

I think the quality of the pages is very important, but not for all of them. EverythingIsWorseWithSharks is a stupid page that is very easy to meet the requirements for, and easy to do (Insert shark into a story for no explicable reason), while tropes like Faux Symbolism are good tools for pointing out parts of the story that actually don't represent anything, and have additional emphasis on situations that isn't relative to the point the moment is trying to convey.

Hell I think EverythingIsWorseWithSharks could be used better if it was rewritten completely to specify why the shark is important or what it means/aims to do, rather than just pointing out there is a shark there.

glennmagusharvey

Okay, I just saw this list, and now I think that this site is not a good idea at all, if it's following these guiding rules.

1) Clear, Professional Style
2) Deep, comparative
analyses of trends within a broad range of literature, rather than
step-by-step "name the trope" breakdowns.
3) Initial focus on
"classics": The English Literature Canon, important World Literature,
important films, theatre, opera etc., to be broadened as time goes on.
4) Intellectual culture.
5) Notability guidelines with citations.
6) Articles written by experts.
7) Responsible moderation.

1.
Good idea, as long as it doesn't get in the way of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking.  I actually prefer some middle ground between TV Tropes and Wikipedia for this purpose.

2.
Comparative analysis of trends is probably significantly better than what TV Tropes is currently doing.  TV Tropes currently is rather descriptive, and relatively concrete at that.

For example, TV Tropes currently has tropes for:
* "hot-bloodedness" in general
* redheads with fiery personalities
* "color-coding" for fire using red as a main color in character designs
* red associated with a more outgoing/extroverted personality, in a contrast to blue being associated with the opposite (Red Oni Blue Oni)
...but it fails to associate the two together into a general trend for associating the color red with fiery personalities and fire itself.

3.
This initial focus is misguided, UNLESS these are meant MERELY to be "pilot" articles/analyses to get the ball rolling by establishing style conventions of the site and stuff like that.

I agree with the goal of getting substantial, good-quality analysis.  However, we should also recognize that this goal is not only possible with well-respected literature--in fact, for all analysis that goes beyond the intentions of the author (or even tries to discern the author's unreported intentions and/or subsconscious motivations), we could read hard into just about anything.  While it's true that well-known, well-studied works already have a large pool of analysis that you could compare and contrast your analyses with, the desire for quality should not trump an honest analysis of creative work.

In fact, one of the best things that could come out of your website idea would actually be the application of formal analysis to lesser-known works and works in popular media.  It would reinforce that there actually is a lot in common between these seemingly disparate forms of storytelling.

4.
What exactly does "intellectual culture" mean?  And how would you prevent someone from cloaking bullshit in big words?

5.
This I'd strongly disagree with.  Just because citations and analysts are non-notable does not mean that they are any worse than notable ones.  Such a policy would be more likely to get in the way of posting good-quality analysis.  A better way of ensuring quality is to actually read every analysis and offer feedback to the author themselves, as well as including a community-based reviewing system for analysts to review each others' analyses.

Similarly, a demand for citations in general would be misguided.  Citations should definitely be allowed, of course, and even encouraged, but requiring them would be detrimental to critical and fresh thinking.

6.
What sort of people are "experts"?  Does this mean that someone has to have a literature degree or something in order to be allowed to post?  The furthest you ought to go with this is Citizendium's idea of asking people to provide their meatspace identities.

This is very misguided unless you want the site to basically become some sort of Cliffs Notes Lite or something.

7.
This I can agree with.  Moderation, site design, and community direction in TV Tropes is somewhat lacking, and better visions for the site's purpose, design, and community interactions would definitely be useful.

In summary:
* I'd like to see how this turns out, but I don't agree much with its design points if these are such.
* If you could connect various trope names on TVT with their formal literary analysis names, that would be helpful.

----

If someone's got a reply to me on SA, please let me know by reposting it here.

----

> AOD go tired of the userbase and of the fact that every name was japanese based. He said clearly that if the wiki didn't establish rules for editing quickly, we'd have to do lots of clean up sooner or later.   Gotta concur with him.

What sorts of rules, though?

And I'm bugged by otakus too and I don't really give a crap about that.  I'm surprised it bothered him that much.  We've got a damn lot of non-gratuitous-Japanese names too, FWIW.

> It's a reactionary prject and many of the project members are literature majors.

Okay, this makes more sense, in observing the motivations.

> After all, this whole project is a reaction to NSTAN. If you believe in it, then this project is not for you on principle, really.

Okay, yeah, pretty much.

> For example, compare the 29,000 character article on the famous and influential novel HuckleBerry Finn, which was extremely influential for its' time and had a profound influence on American culture, to the 89,000 character article on the fetish-based web universe Pokegirls.

Just because there are more characters on one topic than another, on a single website, doesn't mean that a work is more influential.