Some call FanonDiscontinuity when they feel that their time has been wasted after a [[{{Wangst}} pointlessly tragic]] or improperly set-up ShootTheShaggyDog or DownerEnding that relies on CharacterDerailment, DiabolusExMachina, or a CruelTwistEnding to pull off. If the SnicketWarningLabel offers them a way out, they'll take it. This group will readily admit that art is free to be emotional, even depressing, [[TropesAreTools but only if it is done sufficiently well]]. After all, while realistic emotion can make a good work great, [[DarkerAndEdgier needless angst in uncontrolled quantity]] makes a mediocre work terrible: It's pretty much generally agreed that cheaply won tears are annoying, and all too often it's a [[DeathByNewberyMedal cute dog that needlessly suffers so the author can make a point]].

Some are content with seeking out {{spoiler}}s beforehand, when it is thought probable that likable characters will have to deal with amazingly depressing situations, and the viewer wants to be ready when it happens. It helps that the depressing spoilers (concerning who dies etc.) are often the first to come out and are the most widespread: If you know anything about ''HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince'' it's that [[spoiler:one guy]] kills [[spoiler:another guy]]. JossWhedon may be the patron saint of inspiring this particular segment, so much so that it is responsible for almost 100% of the {{Hatedom}} directed towards him.

Some will avoid a work entirely when they hear particularly depressing spoilers, or even general claims that the work is a particularly big downer, no matter what the supposed quality. These people find it grating when FailureIsTheOnlyOption. There is nothing wrong about this, as everyone has the right to their own preferences, but it can often lead to [[ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch Complaining About The Angst Level Of A Show You Haven't Watched]] on the one hand, and cause members of the FanDumb of a tragic work to lambaste the adverse as immature.

to:

Some call FanonDiscontinuity when they feel that their time has been wasted after a pointlessly tragic or improperly set-up ShootTheShaggyDog or DownerEnding that relies on CharacterDerailment, DiabolusExMachina, or a CruelTwistEnding to pull off. If the SnicketWarningLabel offers them a way out, they'll take it. This group will readily admit that art is free to be emotional, even depressing, [[TropesAreTools but only if it is done sufficiently well]]. After all, while realistic emotion can make a good work great, needless angst in uncontrolled quantity]]akes a mediocre work terrible: It's pretty much generally agreed that cheaply won tears are annoying, and all too often it's a [[DeathByNewberyMedal cute dog that needlessly suffers so the author can make a point]].

Some are content with seeking out {{spoiler}}s beforehand, when it is thought probable that likable characters will have to deal with amazingly depressing situations, and the viewer wants to be ready when it happens. It helps that the depressing spoilers (concerning who dies etc.) are often the first to come out and are the most widespread: If you know anything about ''Literature/HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince'' it's that [[spoiler:one guy]] kills [[spoiler:another guy]]. Creator/JossWhedon may be the patron saint of inspiring this particular segment, so much so that it is responsible for almost 100% of the {{Hatedom}} directed towards him.

Some will avoid a work entirely when they hear particularly depressing spoilers, or even general claims that the work is a particularly big downer, no matter what the supposed quality. These people find it grating when FailureIsTheOnlyOption. There is nothing wrong about this, as everyone has the right to their own preferences, but it can often lead to ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch on the one hand, and cause members of the FanDumb of a tragic work to lambaste the adverse as immature.

25th Oct '12 10:24:56 AM memememememe

Send memememememe a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:

to:

25th Oct '12 10:24:19 AM memememememe

Send memememememe a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:

to:

25th Oct '12 10:18:37 AM memememememe

Send memememememe a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:

to:

26th Aug '12 9:32:34 PM memememememe

Send memememememe a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 3,6 (click to see context) from:

Art is often seen as a reflection of life, for good or for bad. Thus, it is not surprising that much of art contains elements that may be considered, well, downright depressing. Everyone agrees that artistic creators should have access to the wide range of human emotions in the characters and events depicted within their works, and no one blames them for attempting to inspire the same range within their audience. Indeed, one of the things most disquieting about {{Plato}}'s ''Literature/{{Republic}}'' is how Creator/{{Socrates}} bans any emotional art from his supposed {{utopia}}. Without the influence of the tragic, we would not be able to experience some of the most critically-lauded works that have ever been created.

However, art is also seen as escapism, and rightfully so. Everyone agrees (or perhaps ''should'' agree) that people are allowed to have their own tastes in the media they consume, and to have their own particular limits in [[AngstDissonance how much fictional sadness they are willing to put up with]], simply because how everyone has their own real life problems to consider. It is not too much to ask for entertainment to be ''entertaining''! If someone prefers a WarmAndFuzzyFeeling over the realism and catharsis of tragedy, then more power to them. No one wants a world where the only TrueArtIsAngsty, and anyone who thinks happy art cannot be good art is certainly not trying hard enough.

to:

Art is often seen as a reflection of life, for good or for bad. Thus, it is not surprising that much of art contains elements that may be considered, well, downright depressing and full of Conflict that grabs the attention. Everyone agrees that artistic creators should have access to the wide range of human emotions in the characters and events depicted within their works, and no one blames them for attempting to inspire the same range within their audience. Indeed, one of the things most disquieting about {{Plato}}'s ''Literature/{{Republic}}'' is how Creator/{{Socrates}} bans any emotional art from his supposed {{utopia}}. Without the influence of the tragic, we would not be able to experience some of the most critically-lauded works that have ever been created.

However, art is also seen as escapism, and rightfully so. Everyone agrees (or perhaps ''should'' agree) that people are allowed to have their own tastes in the media they consume, and to have their own particular limits in [[AngstDissonance how much fictional sadness and "interesting" conflict they are willing to put up with]], simply because how everyone has their own real life problems to consider. It is not too much to ask for entertainment to be ''entertaining''! If someone prefers a WarmAndFuzzyFeeling over how the realism and catharsis of tragedy allegedly gets you to "think", then more power to them. Only a very few wants a world where the only TrueArtIsAngsty, and anyone who thinks happy art cannot be good art is certainly not trying hard enough.

This list shows the last 10 events of 33. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy