Tropes Are Not Bad
, it's just that some have definitions that make it really hard to pull them off well, like Idiot Ball
and most of the Bad Writing
, on the other hand, is when a trope allows all the room a creative writer needs
for good, or at least decent examples. It's just that those are rare with these tropes. Often it's not that the trope doesn't allow room for good examples, but seems to allow room for bad examples (any suggestions for how to phrase that better is welcome).
So these seem to be representations of Sturgeon's Law
in trope form: 90 percent of the examples are crud. Nothing caused directly by the tropes. These are a fault of the writers.
- Bowdlerise (Some good writers have been able to make clean versions about as good as the original material, it's just that most merely substitute something.)
- Cut-and-Paste Translation (You can still make a decent story by only cutting and pasting what you need to, it's just that most force a story to fit what they want it to.)
- Disneyfication (At it's heart, it's just retelling the story to appeal to that demographic, it's just that most change elements that many consider key to the stories.)
- In Name Only (You can still tell a good story that is completely different than the source one, it's just that most end up telling weak stories.)
- The Moral Substitute (It's just that most put the message ahead of the quality.)
- Refuge in Vulgarity (It's just that most think the vulgar parts are jokes enough instead of telling jokes that happen to be vulgar.)
- Running the Asylum (It's just that most fall into the pitfalls listed in the definition.)
- Writer on Board (It's just that most use it to try to force their beliefs or the issues they have when writing, instead of incorporating those into a good narrative.)