This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
ladyfan: 'Two' is the name of a character... Please don't try to fix the capitalization!
Small Name Big Ego really doesn't apply here, the author doesn't say "I am right defy me (ie disagree) at your peril" all that she does is make it clear that she is writing her way for a reason (as in a recent Comments section argument) and may not write in the same style as others or as commenters expect. likewise the responses from readers tend not to fit into the Lickspittle category
Alexandra Erin: Yeah, who put that on there, anyway? :P
Odjn: Made this its own section since it's seemed to have had more added to it and perhaps deserves discussion. Also, copypastaing the stuff from the actual Small Name Big Ego article.
Nobodymuch: I'm not sure "Magical Computer" applies. While they have a literally magical computer, it doesn't do anything real computers don't do so far as I've seen. The Magical Computer trope is for depictions of mundane computers that do very non-mundane (not to mention impossible) things, right?
Zaranthan: I've included what happened to Mackenzie's mother as an instance of the Noodle Incident, but rereading that article seems to imply that it's supposed to be a joke. Is there a separate trope for when such a thing is considered tragic and/or serious?
Lull The Conqueror: Regarding the Noodle Incident - I think this is specifically for an event that's referred to at least semi-frequently, but never described in any detail, not just something that everyone on the forums (or everyone reading the story in general) is wondering about. If memory serves, while Mack's mother is referenced several times, I'm not sure if what happened to her is specifically mentioned more than once. Maybe not even once.
Zaranthan: It's explicitly stated (by Mack herself) in Chapter 177 that SOMETHING happened to her, and she directly says she "doesn't want to talk about it." It's been implied to the brink of certainty before then. Everything fits, except that it's not a joke.
The Uncredible Hallq: 177 also says Mackenzie doesn't know what happened. I think Noodle Incident is for when the characters could say but don't, ergo it doesn't fit.
Mekhet: OK wow somebody is a disgruntled all right. Some of the stuff being added to the article is subjective tropes but some of it's just not true. I won't get into an edit war over it but I'm pulling the examples that just seem like they're thrown in as a grudge. The religious group on campus is the Khampus Khrusade for Khersis, like the real life Campus Crusade for Christ, and they've never actually been shown doing anything wrong, or put in a bad light by the narrator. And while AE admits she has an ego she doesn't shout down criticism of the characters and I don't think telling people "If you don't like the story, maybe you should read something else." is a sign of egoism.
Rann: I won't get into an edit war
Good then. Also, thanks for correcting the name of the religious group that the author gave the same abbreviation to that's used by a hate group to, I've corrected it now that it's back in.
Mekhet: How is it anvilicious? If they were a hate group it would be, but they're not going around lynching people. They're not even antagonists. She took the name of a real life campus religious group and changed the acronym to keep the Added Alliterative Appeal. They're never referred to as the KKK in the story and in the made-up language Kh isn't even the same letter as K. Dude. I guess from your Wall Banger description you didn't like the latest chapter but that's no reason to dig up a bit of background flavor from chapter one and twist it into some overblown critisim.
The site terms for the comment section even point out that Christians read the story and the "respect" rules apply to them, too. Wow. She really has an ax to grind there doesn't she?
I said I'm not going to get in an edit war and I won't, but seriously, talk about Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.
Alexandra Erin: Thanks for the urge to defend me, but I don't actually need it... as I said to Rann on the forum (and this seems to be what pissed him off, somehow), not everybody needs to think the story is good. There's about four or five name'd tropers I know of who seem to enjoy MU so it's not like he's going to totally tar my reputation here, and even if that weren't the case... a wiki article isn't exactly the best advertisement, even if it was entirely a fluff piece. More people probably come to this particular page from Tales of MU than the other way around. They don't need to be sold.
Anyway, Rann's right: I do say that if somebody doesn't like the story, they probably shouldn't read it. If he chooses to have a bit of a flounce while he's at it... lolinternet, amirite?
Rann: Actually, I'm mostly annoyed that a story I enjoyed earlier really sucks now. But hey, way to prove that ego!
Mekhet: I'm still taking out the "Acceptable Religious Targets" entry because it's just not accurate. "AKA" means "also known as". The Khampus Khrusade has not ever been referred to as "KKK" in the story nor would it be because of the Translation Convention. Considering the story is about half Fantastic Racism and half Fetish Fuel I'm pretty sure it would be more obvious if the Khrusaders were supposed to be Klansmen.
Rann: The Khampus Khrusade has not ever been referred to as "KKK" in the story
You are incorrect. Mackenzie at one point notes, quite specifically, a "KKK logo" on a student's door. Sooo, put back in!
Mekhet:
You are incorrect. Not to go all nerdcore on your ass, but you're thinking of the guy across the hall from Ian's door. It is specifically referred to in the story as Kh Kh Kh, because the letter in "Khersis" is not the same as K. But you already know that as you were obviously a diehard MU reader until a short time ago.
There's a search box in the sidebar of the site which only searches the story without looking at comments or any thing else. Do a search for KKK. No matches found.
The Khampus Khrusade for Khersis is not also known as the KKK. Stop putting that in.
ETA: Before I checked the discussion page, I changed the entry to explain the confusion/debate but after reading your latest here I have to say you're just being petty and vindictive and I took it out entirely again. Twenty seconds on the site would show you that it's never been called the KKK and you know for yourself already that they've never done anything racist or been shown to be a hate group or anything except be in the background.
I'm seriously not going to edit any more but at this point the discussion is here on the page. If you choose to put the reference back in with the evidence here for anybody to read and knowing that anybody could spend two seconds clicking this http://talesofmu.nfshost.com/story/?s=KKK
and see that there are no chapters containing KKK than you are pretty much admitting that you're just being vindictive about a story you used to like and don't any more.
Rann: Well, I dunno, I might be too busy watching you not have an edit war.
Stormcaller3801: Rann, drop it. The only place KKK has been used is by readers. I also dispute the Wall Banger entry, as the guy who said it, because of the circumstances. I said I'd throw the book across the room because the whole thing was diving into material that made me uncomfortable- not, as that trope appears to imply, that there was something so stupid or inconsistent as to make me want to do it.
Garbonzo42: Isn't the Kh symbol pronounced 'kee'? So Kh Kh Kh= keekeekee? Zerg rush?
Stormcaller3801: I question the Author Appeal, or at least suggest that it's been subverted: the entry for Author Appeal suggests that these things are added to the story in a nonsexual context- that's very much not true. There's also been several fetishes that Mackenzie has encountered that have not appealed to her in the slightest: automobile-equivalents, infantilism, and beastiality. No word on how the Author feels about them, but it's been made clear that at the very least infantilism is something the main character would rather forget exists.
Odjn: Author Appeal doesn't necessarily include all fetishes, merely that some are shown in a positive manner that the author happens to share. If Erin enjoyed infantilism then it'd be a point against it.
The Uncredible Hallq: Deleted:
- Jumping the Shark (Among other things, it's a little hard to buy Mack as standing up for half-human and nonhuman rights when it's finally made abundantly clear she won't stand up to any moderately attractive female for her own rights as a sentient being.)
Odjn: It's more frustrating to me that on one hand it glorifies Mack's newfound independence and willingness to say what she wants and on another hand picture Amaranth's relationship with Mack as completely healthy even when Mack is ordered to do things she vehemently dislikes, even hates, as though her wants are inconsequential to Amaranth's/Steff's. Another selling point for Wall Banger is quite frankly the only character I (and I'm guessing a lot of people, too) can relate to is Ian, because he's the Straight Man in more ways than one.
All the focus is put on the kinky ultra sexual characters and the few straight ones are either the most minor of main characters (Ian) or get mentioned or featured once every twenty or thirty chapters. In fact, thinking offhandedly, if you compared the proportionate amount of straight to bi/gay characters in the main cast to the minor cast the ratio significantly increases for straight people the less important they are. There's one lesbian portrayed enormously negative, Puddy, compared to the rest of the college. In fact, generally speaking when we see other college students they're either racist, intolerant of other sexual practices, completely religious fanatics, or plain cruel. Amaranth at one point even tells Mack that Ian is worse off because he's not into their kinks (which could be her bossy know it all thing going on but has so much in common with the tone of the rest of work it can't be simply ignored.)
It's also kinda skeevy PWP at points, the characters ignore that one character is going to be a torturer and one eats living sentient beings in favor of blanket protesting against speciesism/sexual discrimination, and the JDR fangirlism is fucking creepy. So there's a few arguments for wall banger.
Altered Wall Banger explanation, to make it briefer, more general, and more neutral. If you liked the old text, explain why here.
-
Wow... been a long time since I had time to look at this page. :P Wish I could say I was surprised at what Rann's pulled. I In addition to the patently untrue claim that I ever told somebody to get off my back if they criticize Mackenzie (I've said again and again, somebody will like her and some people will hate her, and I don't care which anybody does. I have suggested that people who don't like the story not read it, but... well... that's kind of a "duh" thing.), he's also now claimed that "People who add unflattering tropes to this page get banned from the forum?"
Uh, no. A single person—-surprisingly, Rann himself —-got banned from the forum for his conduct on the forum, and then went on to add "unflattering" tropes. Arguably, there were already some examples of such tropes on the page. Incidentally, he's the only person who's been banned, apart from a 14 year old who was banned for obvious reasons and various spam bots before I enabled moderation. I don't ban people for disagreeing with me, or for criticizing my work, or for not liking the characters. A few minutes spent looking at the comments on the site will reveal the ridiculousness of that idea. :)
I know this isn't Wikipedia, but I'm still not going to touch this article myself and I've asked my IRL friends to do the same. Still, there's the truth for the 1.2 people who are statistically likely to care. I could not care less that I'm labeled a "Small Name, Big Ego", because... as my comment near the top of this page suggests... I added that label to the page myself. Why not? I'm aware of my faults and I try to have fun with them.
And my "JDR fangirling" which I'm pretty sure has also been referenced somewhere on this wiki... she submitted an entry to my somewhat slumberous webfiction portal site, and I was excited that somebody who has a bigger audience than mine was aware of my project. I recognized that she's a bigger name than I am. That's it. That's the extent of my fangirling. Oh, I did stay up all night one time reading Unicorn Jelly, which is how I knew who she was. It was good... but I can't get into the rest of her stuff. Whoo, look at me, the crazy JDR fangirl.
As for whether or not MU constitutes "Author Appeal"... take a look at my contributor page. It's a bit of self-deprecating hyperbole, obviously, but yeah, it's there.
Odjn: I'm not sure about your thoughts about it exactly but if I ran anything and JDR showed up and approved of anything I did I'd seriously reconsider my approach at the least. Getting positive attention from JDR is like having Ken Lay wander in and tell you he really likes your economic models.
Rann: Also, by the way... she's lying about a few of those things. The "get off my back" is a direct quote, and I left the forums voluntarily. Exactly when she chose to ban me afterwards, I have no clue, as I only tried to look back in when I noticed people complaining here about "More Tales of MU", but, yeah... outright lyin', there.
Odjn: Rann, I'm not sure if that's targeted at me (in which I could care less if it was) or for the general reader, or for everyone, in which case we'd benefit from it being less drama-ey.
Bobfrank: Well, so much for "I don't ban people for disagreeing with me." When I stated that racism is no longer a major societal problem in the United States the way it used to be, and pointed to the fact that we just elected a black President in a landslide victory as evidence of society's improved attitude these days, she twisted what I said into "because one black person made it big, this proves that there is no such thing as racism anymore," declared that that was "just so stupid that it hurts me to look at it," and banned me immediately. No warnings, no chance to explain the misunderstanding, nothing. Just say the wrong thing, and bam, you're gone.
Lull The Conqueror: Cut this:
- The author fails biology forever for that one. Any species that matures quickly also ages quickly, and vice versa.
From under Really 700 Years Old, because, well, A Wizard Did It. That's kind of the point when you've got elves, isn't it?
Jayngfet: Reading this, archive binging in my spare time and I'm wondering if it's okay to add Wall Banger to the list. I can't be the only one who thinks that any sane who's discovered that you're associates kill and eat (which is different from the protagonist due to enjoyment and lack of need)would immediately tell someone. This isn't factoring in that they plan on doing it again as soon as possible and the attempt at eating someone alive. Or at least the people who spend lots of time in close proximity.
Willbyr: Maliko and Suzi as Sooni's Battle Butlers - yea or nay?
Semiapies: Don't buy it, entirely.
Willbyr: I'm not entirely sure that the trope applies, but I can't think of another trope that works...if someone's got a better idea, change it.
Semiapies: Borderline; I say leave it.
Semiapies: Would be possible to set up an entry on Alexandra Erin that would be separate from her contributor page, I wonder? Might be nice to give the people who want to ramble on about a mean "far-left" writer who apparently killed their parents or something, perhaps using scare-quoted "tolerance".
Rann: Strawmen. Not just for trope examples anymore!
Semiapies: Strawmen? I'm quoting the editor(s) in question. This isn't a political point, it's a simple matter of one or more asshats who whine about "far-leftism" and treat "tolerance" as some sort of evil code-word. Let's give them and others somewhere to wank about how they don't like the author that doesn't cause them to vandalize a perfectly useful describe-the-work entry.
Semiapies: It might be going overboard to spoiler-out the entire description of that last antagonist. He's more or less a Chekhov M.I.A. by the very nature of Mack's character.
Semiapies: Hey, nice reformatting of the examples on 24/Aug/09, Willbyr.
Willbyr: Thanks!
Magus: I keep finding this under So Bad Its Horrible:
- And for some, the main story as well.
Okay, look. I don't care what this story has in it or how much you like it. The problem is the trope! So Bad It's Horrible is for things that are objectively terrible to every demographic! If it's this bad "for some", it doesn't fit the trope!
(To be fair, I added something like this under Your Mileage May Vary. Gotta be fair!)
Libros:
I added it originally because I read the article in question, and based the outstanding suckitude criteria off the following tidbits:
While one of the major themes of the work is non standard sexuality/lifestyles, to the (fairly significant) point I read through it, the only positive example of a vanilla human was Ian. Shortly after we discover he's into bondage. Ok...except nearly every other straight vanilla human was A) a bit player and B) intolerant/racist of the alternative community. Normally this is Fantastic Racism, but given the strict Author Appeal it comes off as the only good people are those who are into kink, which is echoed directly by Amaranth in the food court that Ian has it worse off than them because he's not poly so it falls into Strawman territory, and it does so...horribly.
Another is the apparent massive neurosis epidemic everyone has. Amaranth is insecure AND domineering, Puddy is a crazy rapist bitch, Barley is a crazy rapist bitch, Steff is...beyond description, Sooni really believes life is like in universe anime and treats her friends/slaves like shit, Mack has issues until they magically disappear until it turns out she needs someone to tell her how to behave...and act...and who to have sex with...and all of the above is horrible characterization, confusing 'depth' with 'lots of issues that aren't treated like issues and vanish on demand'.
Yet another fault is what some of the cast are, by the majority of cultures, evil and get away with it. Steff expresses interest in torturing people and has a ton of shit kicked out of her by her 'boyfriend'. No one calls her out on it or even disagrees. Puddy does some rapin' and no one punishes her or even expresses an urge for retribution. Fee Jee's culture eats sentient beings- and when Mack finds out she's creeped out but, gasp, no one makes anything of it. Sooni beats her slave (which is actually treated acceptable as the slave says it's the only way she'll ever make it to a college) into the hospital, and Amaranth's reaction is she needs hugs and kisses. Special kisses. That's horrible.
There's tons and tons of filler. Not even world building filler, just mounds of text that simply could be cut.
And really the final straw is that apparently you didn't need to remove the SBIH from More Tales of Mu, which is " a much less interesting protagonist(not as damaged Mack with less racism), a smaller (and much less interesting) supporting cast(who, aside from the protag and Iason, to my recall weren't nearly as insane) , and the prominence of Iason, a character who shows all the attributes of a certifiable sociopath except the tendency towards physical violence(Sooni, who gleefully obliges on the violence part). But the author sure seems to like Iason, for some reason...", which goes on to say
"To be fair, Iason's faults have been pointed out by characters in the story, Jamie just chooses to ignore them. Of course, the series does seem to offer many situations where Jamie's sensible reaction to Iason being controlling, misogynistic, or an asshole are reinterpreted by Iason to be completely irrational, with little to no consequences for either character."
Which is a pretty good description of the main story, except with less pointing out and more dumb acceptance. So there's -and I say this lightly considering how objectively awful the second one is- even more reason for SBIH.
And also, saying every demographic has to hate it is virtually impossible. There are cultures where rape is condoned, pretty much the same for gay bashing, spouse beating, etc...saying that people have to universally detest it is impossible. People liking something doesn't mean so bad it's horrible- from a critical viewpoint it has to be horrible. There is such a thing as guilty pleasures for a reason (ironically the novel with the same name is one as well.)
Semiapies: I don't see "one or more Angry Internet Men does not like it" under the definition of So Bad Its Horrible. In fact:
The simple fact is, the person or people (because I'm decreasingly sure it's even as many as two guys) who are complaining keep ranting about how he or they resent the author's politics and sexual interests and how they just hate reading these hundreds and hundreds of installments of evil, far-leftist porn. This dislike, no matter how strong, doesn't make the actual writing or the work "objectively awful".
Libros:
I'm sorry, you're putting words in my mouth- I didn't say anything about the characters being gay or their sexuality being wrong or resenting it in any way. Unless you're saying the author's politics include "people who enjoy only heterosexual sex are at best misguided and let us convert the heathens" which I strongly doubt, speaking for myself I frankly don't care either way about her politics. I am a radical leftist myself- it is that, simply, in this work she uses a poor writing technique that portrays a vast majority as incredibly intolerant without actually fleshing out their reasonings or lack thereof (even bad people tend to have reason) in order to get people feeling more for the victims. It is not a good writing technique.
The character traits I mentioned all happen in the story. There is no inaccuracy there-if need be, I'll go read it again and quote the pages if you'd like. I did not rant about how the work itself is evil, nor how her politics are bad- the few tidbits of 'tolerance is good' weren't especially bad. The horrible parts are:
A) An entire section of the population (characterized as the humhets) is portrayed as evil in regards as needless intolerance, hatred of anything different, lack of individual representation besides a name and often less than say, 5 lines of speech, and is represented as a whole by one character in the main cast who isn't actually a straight man, seeing as he is a mild sadist (slapping turns him on when he does it). Said character does not like the situation but isn't vocal about, yet is condescended about by one of the main characters in exactly the manner many of the people she criticizes yet it's portrayed positively. If this were to be displayed in reverse, it would be racism and sexism accepted by the author. On the outright scale, it's not as high as say, Single Asian Female, but the proportions (made up statistic based off the character portrayals, do correct if you have better ones) place 95% or more of the positive characters in the alternative sex/gender scene. That leaves pretty much everyone else (human wise) as bad people who hate Harlowe for who they are. This is not saying the work is bad for portraying these characters AS positive, rather that it is bad for portraying pretty much everyone else as awful people. As an aside note, there are bad people within the community Erin presents as well- Puddy, Barley, and debatably Viktor/Steff
B) The characters have displayed a number of mental problems that have very rarely been handled correctly (Steff), whose problems have been accepted when it is extremely inappropriate they aren't (Sooni), and have, in some cases, completely disappeared (Mack). Using psychology in this manner is extremely bad writing as it shows wanting to use a body of study without actually knowing the body of study.
C) The characters frequently engage in unrealistic behavior. Sooni nearly kills Kai what, twice? And is implied to beat the other two on a regular basis while getting away scott-free. Not many people would want to be friends with Steff after she declares she wants to torture people, no matter how likable she is. The fact that sentient beings acceptably eat other sentient beings (note: Never read anything up to Mercy, so I can't talk about her) such as Fee Jee the mermaid and her cousin and no one outright says "That's evil, and get away from me."- not that everyone should say so, because different cultures would react to it differently but that no one at all does- is pretty awful right there.
But honestly, the SBIH isn't there for one person to decide. Rather, it seems that only Magus thought to remove it after it being there (twice) for a significant amount of time with everyone else reading it and not feeling it was due to be changed is pretty indicative that it is horrible.
And again for clarity's sake, I don't care particularly who fucks what or who thinks what politics are right, but that the story qualifies for that dubious honor by the manner of the devices it employs. Additionally, we are discussing this- note that I haven't placed it back into the article yet. If you can refute my points I won't press the issue, but saying that the reason I did those things was because I resent you- which I don't, as I'm happy in my way as others are in theirs- and that I believe their politics are evil and thus this makes the work awful- which I don't, as the politics never come up in my reasoning- is ad hominem. Please stop. There's a reason it says : "Don't be rude." down under.
"I frankly don't care either way about her politics...I am a radical leftist myself" Yeah. Have you even met a "radical leftist" in your life? And yes, I pretty much presume you're one of the one or two right-wing guys we've had on here before, ranting about how an evil-far-leftist is besmirching the good name of white-male-Christians. If you aren't one of them, you might want to do something about your similar writing and IP address.
Incidentally - "but saying that the reason I did those things was because I resent you" - I'm intrigued by this bit of oddly personal disclaiming. Do you think I'm the writer, or do you assume I'm gay, or leftist, or some such?
"a poor writing technique that portrays" It is not a poor "writing technique" to portray something the reader disagrees with or dislikes, full stop. A work can be well-made and serve an agenda people consider foolish, unreasonable, evil, etc. Triumph of the Will is an important film and considered a classic of cinema, and it's blatant Nazi propaganda.
"The characters have displayed a number of mental problems that have very rarely been handled correctly" And they're rarely on an even keel, and some, like Steff, are often outright non-functional; one might think there's a connection.
"The characters frequently engage in unrealistic behavior. Sooni nearly kills Kai what, twice? And is implied to beat the other two on a regular basis while getting away scott-free." Once, and yes, you call rightly on the story-ruining unrealism of people illegally in a country enduring abuse to avoid being deported. Thank goodness that never happens. (You do remember that Sooni's servants are slaves, a fact that, if discovered, would get them and her kicked out of the university and sent home? And they, especially Kai, want to get an education so as to get a better life away from Sooni?)
See, this is the problem. You say things like "If you can refute my points I won't press the issue", but you present no points that are not your personal taste or objections to themes of the story. You present nothing about the actual quality of the work. If you dislike rudeness, then consider some humility about your own opinions - or at least keep to blogs and forums that aren't meant to be reasonably neutral examinations of the work.
"An entire section of the population (characterized as the humhets)" Well, if you want to provide page numbers, start with uses of "humhet". :)
Libros:
Point out where I am not radical left, please.
Humhet is my device to quickly describe human, heterosexual. There are, with perhaps one or maybe two exceptions, no humans beings who think Mack's circle of friends aren't horribly depraved people who hope they'd die.
The resent you bit is quoted from you saying "The simple fact is, the person or people (because I'm decreasingly sure it's even as many as two guys) who are complaining keep ranting about how he or they resent the author's politics and sexual interests and how they just hate reading these hundreds and hundreds of installments of evil, far-leftist porn."
I mistook the statement as you sharing the same views as the author and that by implication I resented you. I apologize- it was not my intent to try and come out as a personal attack towards you. I felt personally attacked by that I resented you for something, which I don't.
How exactly are Kai and the others going to get a better life if they're slaves? They would need to stay, and if they're deported/sent home with Sooni they're slaves with a degree. And again, there are other possible solutions. Why doesn't Mack go to the lawyer she's retained and tell him of the situation-I'm sure he can do something or refer them to an associate who can, since apparently slavery isn't legal and the school is responsible? Talking to a school official about dropping her lawsuit in exchange for the 3 to be able to stay without Sooni, or even just not releasing that the school allowed slaves to be sent in to the media in the first place? Those lives are in danger, and not just oh they might be traumatized forever but in a manner that, in three more years, might get one or more killed. They don't even sit down and seriously think, what can we do to help them?
Triumph of the Will was a cinematic masterpiece, you are correct. The techniques it used were amazing. Erin's are not. Without positive examples of a population, they all look bad. When this is to the point of being deliberate, it is the old you are wrong and we are right. That's a bad technique because while it's conceivable that a large amount of the population would stupidly hate behavior they view as evil, it's almost inconceivable to think that all of them hate unerringly. Using mental illness the way she does, one moment dramatic and the other trivial, is bad technique because it lacks consistency, and especially bad technique because multiple characters rely on it so you need to get it right for it to have the impact it's supposed to have. The exception to that is the accurate description of Steff.
So, these are my points.
A) Humans have no humanity unless they are part of a select subgroup based on what people do in the sack. A human is more likely to be portrayed as cruel and mindlessly intolerant for no reason at all, while lacking any other features than the discrimination.
B) The author desires mental illness to be a plot point, but is repeatedly inconsistent in all but one use of the technique, ruining the impact it may have had, and substituting it for character depth.
C) The characters don't have realistic reactions to behavior, as the examples in my previous post.
Taelor: While I'm glad you're doing this here, and not on the main page, you guys really need to chill. It's just a web series. If you don't like it fine. If you do, also fine. But whatever side your on, remember not to feed the trolls.
Semiapies: Believe me, I have nothing more to say to this nut.
Fast Eddie: Just a reminder: We're not about opinions of the work in the proper articles. Editorializing is deleted on a routine basis. Wouldn't have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion. Please feel free to write a review. You do that by clicking the "reviews" link at the top of the article.
Semiapies: Spoiler-text still strikes me as excessive on this page, especially in the character descriptions (again, one of the antagonists!) . Wiki policy seems to be to not put spoilers in the description section in the first place. Would anyone mind my cutting out all the spoilers above the examples?
- Willbyr - Yeah, I think that most of that info is covered well enough in the examples that the spoilers can be ditched. The only thing that I'd suggest otherwise is to put Evil Is Cool in the examples and move what's spoilered in Steff's description there as the subversion/inversion that her reactions are to the trope.
- Semiapies: Good thinking; I'll toss any spoilers that should be examples into the list.
Semiapies: Hmm, I don't buy the Gone Horribly Wrong one - the lady is absolutely to spec. Is there a "perverting the process" or something similar trope that would fit better?
- Willbyr - I don't know...I tried to do some digging in the Frankenstein monster pages and related to see if there was a trope that would fit better, but I didn't see one. I think I'll post this on the Lost and Found page and see if anyone's got a suggestion.
Willbyr: In regards to the latest edit war: I don't care one way or the other about the issues with AE's Small Name, Big Ego or lack thereof, but the Schedule Slip is undeniable and needs to be in the example list.
KiTA: No one is denying the Schedule Slip, but the wording of these recent edits is overwhelmingly negative, opinionated, and generally reads like something from the Bad Webcomics Blog or a related site. Criticisms of the work are appropriate; Criticisms of the author are appropriate when worded properly in specific tropes. "She pretty much bans anyone who disagrees with her about anything" doesn't hit that watermark.
