Created By: Huo on June 14, 2012 Last Edited By: Huo on December 19, 2014
Nuked

True Art is Predictably Freaky

When True Art reaches a point of being stereotyped and then reverts to being incomprehensible

Name Space:
Main
Page Type:
Trope
"It is just bizarre how as if everything is somehow meant to be for fetish purposes." -paraphrased TV Trope hater quote

Sometimes True Art is no longer True Art. A writer meant to use something Taboo as a form of Aesop to enhance his work to True Art level only for his embraced work to inspire a fandom who would see too much into things thus creating future generations of more messed up works.

Then the Audience Reaction for such works would smarten up. Maybe they've read TV Tropes. Maybe they haven't but tropes get cloned too often that they've become disgusted. New writers then fall into a state of how do I stop readers from thinking this way?!

Over time, the future storytellers get fed up or join the other side that they make works of True Art that are subversions of True Art but really aren't because how could you subvert True Art?

In an ideal world, most of these could be consider Post-True Art but often times these are just unintended sequels to True Art that slips out of the grasp of both the haters and the fandom to produce something entirely incomprehensible but both sides would insist as easy to explain but would often just mean they'd worship and hate on the freakier aspects to define the concept.

For the artists' revelation, see Go Mad from the Revelation (though often times people don't so much as go mad but angry or disgusted), for when the fanbase is turned into zombies before it dawns on the artist to prevent this, see the phenomenon of the "The Red Stapler" especially entries where the artists regret inducing that trope.

This trope can commonly induce My God What I Have Done on artists who realized they have created the ripe opportunity for their works to be flanderized despite knowing before hand of the risks and flaws behind their model when it was still running at maintainable levels of standard.


Examples

Anime & Manga
  • The moe art style is a weird adaptation correction of the stereotypical anime style as it's supposed to continue the original large bug eye style Tezuka modeled after the Disney films but where as Tezuka used this style to step away from the Disneyfied naivete found in cartoons to portray more realistic cartoon youthful enthusiasm, the modern moe style uses this to push the Disney style of naivete Up to Eleven.
    • Ironically as more moe infects the mainstream of anime, certain people especially women try to model the look of their eyes around a form of real life moe that is based around the more contained style of moe
    • The second irony being that the popularity of anime has pretty much debunked the old Western impression that every anime style is drawn with large unrealistic bug eyes. Of course, as with most things, the producers of anime ended up assuming that the popularity was due to this pattern and released more translated series featuring more cutesy moe style and many obsessive Western fans thinking that was a way to support more English translated anime supported and even rallied around that until today most products, including American animation style trying to imitate attributes of anime, all follow a certain case where less orthodox manga style (including Tezuka's original style) are bound to be buried underneath the vast amounts of not only large exaggerated bug eyes but also more character attributes matching that of those matching the moe phenomenon. It's safe to say that the only reason anime and manga has segregated further is because most fanbase take these things as given no different than the art reaction for and against Western comic book superheroes have some lineage to spandex and underwear being worn on the outside.
    • One interesting quirk about Anime is that it was originally this for Western Audiences. That's why most English books informing people about why Manga and to that extent Anime is Anime tends to take spanning it's entire history of development just to explain what it to Western Audiences. Buy this book for an example: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1856693910/sr=1-1/qid=1154143780/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4890221-4016709?ie=UTF8&s=books
      • Most of the confusion stems from Western Audiences not being used to categorizing or tagging comics in organic words such as emotions.
      • A common example of this is the confusion for Josei where even Westerners who understand the "For Women" aspect tend to prescribe this to Mature version of Shojo where as this term simply means that the comics is not for girls but instead aimed for women with little care of whether the subject is arbitrarily about a mature subject or not. The woman here meaning not so much a stereotypical woman but simply any woman: pervert, married, young girl old of thought, otaku, non-otaku. It doesn't matter. It's a category meant for the audience to find a way to acquire a particular piece of comics instead of being neatly filed into a store much like the TV Tropes Index.

Literature
  • Fanfiction can be this but even without fanfiction, literature is bogged by examples of works that are considered predictable by many people but sell well because they are predictable until a backlash happens only for nostalgia or vanity to kick in and an entire new form of bad literature becomes popular until one day someone hits the jackpot by combining both the quality of True Art with the common predictable cliches and the modern freakiness resulting in a notable Trope example or even a Trope Overdose or Trope namer.
  • Incidentally for general literature, many authors who mistake the messages and aesops in books as having the power to correctly influence the masses end up having their works flanderized due to this pattern. This only starts becoming freaky though when today many other mediums try to mimic the failures of literature unto other forms of recorded storytelling such as games and TV shows. Incidentally most documentaries also fall under this case. Very few authors seem to be also wary of this effect and if anything, there have been more pressure to sell the dream of books as a medium for instructional teaching particularly with the boom of the self-help fad.
    • Cracked.com kindly gives us 6 popular books that have been extremely made freaky over time. Predictably most of this being works of some high quality managed to leave most of it's readers with at least something. People just tend to remember the image rather than the original intent and eventually the original intent lost to the more romanticized and cult friendly misconceptions. Ironically, the generational continuation of flanderization is what drives the space for why these types of articles are clicked on by modern viewers who have the luxury of having the web. Playing straight to the trope though, many predictably remember the pop entertainment article versions even if they have read other more in-depth sites explaining each of these entries away and future works of art rarely ever go far in correcting this in such a way that the it's no longer propagated by a large number of repeat storytellers/trope users: http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6-books-everyone-including-your-english-teacher-got-wrong_p2.html
  • Jane Austen's novels, like Pride And Prejudice, were in part social commentary, but are mainly known for creating the template of modern-day Romantic Comedy. Over time, the genre has grown to significant size, but has often lost its socially critical angle. (Again, I'm not really up-to-date on the genre as it present itself today; I have seen a few romantic comedies, but found them so forgettable that I can't even remember their names).
Films
  • Many directors of the original films can suffer from this especially as more films get rebooted and flanderized although most times it is averted as the blame is shifted towards whichever group is currently handing the project. There are rare examples though such as the phenomena of multiple animals being accidentally killed due to unrealistic film portrayals of how they are taken care of that have led to enough hysteria around the power a movie has over an audience.

Comics
  • Comics as a genre can be this. First it was trash but had some True Art so it became about spandex and wearing underwear on the outside but that became both predictable and freaky so it was used as a parody so then more quality works became graphic novels but then things got too dark and reconstruction and deconstruction happens but in-between those...
    • You'd have places that separate comics from *ahem* Japanese comics such as manga and then some places would separate that from manhwa
    • You'd have comics with characters that never ever die...then you'd have a fanbase that would worship those characters not dying and paying for movies, merchandise, etc...AND THEN they'd pay for team-ups, artwork and continuity reboots AND THEN you'd have the same fanbase of critics worshipping deconstructions and expies who are still pretty much comic book characters. Watchmen could be considered as both playing this trope straight as well as deconstructing the former freakiness of comic book hero worship.

TV
  • iCarly's peak could be attributed to this. While the shipping fanbase could go to extreme Fetish Fuel squicky interpretations and the more casual fanbase could be entirely oblivious of such observations, it is often not being on either extreme where the gems of the show shine.
    • A common case for this is how iCarly was originally criticized for being a lame TV show based on a web show. When the show dropped the web show focus (while still pretending to keep it), that's when it truly received it's most viewers. Many who were drawn by the characterizations of the actors in a show that seemingly didn't have anything to do with anything thus unintentionally combining itself into a kid's version of Seinfeld that is Darker and Edgier.
    • For the audience who got some of the innuendo being gotten past the radar by the show, the peak of iCarly was seen to be one of the smartest ways to Get Crap Past the Radar of any show both due to it's sheer volume and just the random nature of the show. It got worse and predictably the fanbase recoiled at everything from the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship to the squicky jokes seemingly becoming more forced. YMMV but some feel this is why Victorious (despite heavy network exposure) was not as popular and also why many consider True Jackson V.P. to be a better show despite it's cancellation.

Stand-Up Comedy
  • Though it is unlikely that those involved in the business of selling diamonds care, Bill Maher once told this anecdote:


"Women think about diamonds the way men think about sex, the way leeches think about blood," Bill Maher once remarked. "But diamonds have a lot of blood on them, even without the terrorist connection... because diamonds are mined in Africa by rebel armies, and the rebel armies control the territory and make the villagers mine the diamonds, and they control them through terror, through such lovely things as cutting off the arms of the little children - something you never see in the De Beers commercials.

"Now, I told this to a woman recently, who was only about the nicest person I've ever met - but she is a woman. And I told her about Africa and the armies and the rebels and the terror and the cutting off the arms of the little children. And she looked up at me with a little sad face and said, 'Both arms?'"

Music
  • Rap music started out as a political statement, losing its edge over time.

Mythology
  • Most are the result of Disneyfication but it's when scientific tries to answer the question that it can't still answer that many worshipped concepts becomes this. This can result in some contradictory social reactions such as people and scientists alike believing in certain theories on say the universe that are just as silly as classic mythological concepts but hold the category of being a theory. This unfortunately exposes many people to cons and pseudoscience and New Age hybrids and it can get particularly dangerous when things become political. Often times, it's not the scientific theories or concepts that become True Art though but what the general oft-cited explanations are and how certain clarifications are used in other works be the shout-outs or current event conversations. By far the best meta-mythology of this is that science should move on but stupid people should be left behind by people who know something about something (including science) when their pre-conceived beliefs have been rebutted by trivia thus often resulting into many people not being able to differentiate between something simple like what a peer reviewed study should be about or leaving the blind test attitude as soon as it comes to arguments where the other side should be quickly rebutted at all.

Videogames
  • Dating sim games tend to suffer from these initially only to be a troper for adult themed plots only for it's gift giving features to be implemented into other relationship improving aspects of family friendlier games until nowadays most gamers who play any game with extreme grinding features can definitively realize and explain the silliness of dating sims but are unable to correlate this same silly mechanics to their favorite games that have this feature but does not explicitly reveal it as a purpose for dating.
  • As videogames mature, this also applies to urban legends about videogame genres. Certain conservatives might have used to think body horror videogames like Diablo are a simulation of demonic works only for modern propaganda to turn it into a conversation about how it influences school shooting but today even if you're open minded, it's hard to draw a line between not reacting to "What the Hell Hero" as more sandbox games get released and just being a normal gamer. In fact this holds true for normal gamers. That's why there's casual and social gaming as expies for normal and MMORPG games. This gets worse when you are thrown out of the loop and could not afford several consoles. There may come a time when a straight shooter like Doom is considered freaky.

Western Animation
  • An intersting example would be the succession of cable cartoons. Powerpuff Girls was created as a reaction and parody to the saturation of Sailor Moon on cable tv, but their hardline, simplistic style has become the norm for cartoons later on, and the series itself has become a fountain of cutesy merchandise for little girls, which completely misses the point. By the time Panty And Stocking With Garterbelt came out, they felt like a subversion of a well-established, seen-as-cutesy style, when the original spirit of the Powerpuff Girls was one of whopass.
Real life
  • Nerd and geek culture is generally this. Some guys make a wiki for tropes. Then some guys adds certain non-family friendly tropes for the sake of completion. Then something throws it up to Eleven and uses the wiki format as their wank spaceship. Then people criticize the wiki for having it. Then someone more neutral explains the notability of certain tropes. Then all hell breaks loose and no one ends up having a grasp of any standard and the admins of sites ends up trying to eradicate everything while putting certain contents in Noah's Ark and then fails horribly.
  • Politics in general is messy but when you have years of school indoctrination, it could be hard to step by step explain away why...
    • The president is not supposed to be a king
    • A democracy is not a republic
    • A democratic republic does not have a democratic voting system
    • That the person who understands why the president is not king should not hand over their voting process because the president, Congress or the candidate's slogan implies to vaguely support their wedge issues.
    • P.S. This trope only applies to politics if you believe there is indeed a good version of governance but every time discussions get derailed when people predictably point out the flaws of government but ends up also predictably freaking out on what good government could be instead of eliminating the bad government as soon as possible by "not" voting for the lesser of two evils.
  • Porn in general is this. Being a harbinger of innovation, True Art in porn is often criticized as bad until it becomes popular enough as a genre that the fanbase ends up being categorized as weirdos instead only to be subverted by true weirdos whose fanbase create predictable low to middling quality of porn-based clones that they end up riding up to mainstream works (such as porn sites proving that web sites can be profitable in the early days of the internet) only to be taken up to the Eleven by people who are dubbed freaks that surpass the standard of taste by others thus resulting into modern social convention such as there being a similarity between cartoon porn and real life sex which then leads to freakiness when cartoon porn becomes predictably unrealistic and then people just call people who indulge in those as freaks and perverts. (Yes, even the perverts might call others perverts for looking at works that is Predictably Freaky despite being True Art.)

Community Feedback Replies: 65
  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    Deadbeatloser22

  • June 14, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 14, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 14, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 14, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 14, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 15, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 16, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 16, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 16, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 16, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 17, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 17, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 17, 2012
    MetaFour

  • June 17, 2012
    MetaFour
    Apologies for the blanked replies. A vandal hit this ykttw and the replies couldn't be saved.
  • June 17, 2012
    jkbeta
    Ok, in that case, I'll try to summarize what I think I've worked out so far:

    This trope is about situations where a specific piece of art is made to attack, address, or discuss something while being transgressive in other dimensions as well, and later works follow the style or other properties, but do so without presenting the message anymore - they copy the "freaky" style, but not whatever was behind it.

    I can't really think of good new examples right now. Huo, does this seem to be an acceptable summary of the trope?

    Edit: How about calling the trope something along the line "shallow follow the leader"? Maybe "shallow imitation"? I think the heavy use of TV Tropes jargon actually distracts from the contents of this trope.

    Edit 2: Come to think of it, while there seems to be something tropeworthy here, I fear that we have to be reaaaly careful that this does not turn into complaining quickly - there's obvious danger that it may turn into "Complaining about follow-up works you don't like".
  • June 17, 2012
    Ekuran
  • June 17, 2012
    jkbeta
    Ekuran: Who do you mean?
  • June 17, 2012
    Xtifr
    No, I don't think this is even remotely tropeworthy. At best, it might be YMMV-worthy, if someone really thinks we need yet another YMMV not-trope. Personally, I think we've got more than enough of those, considering how little they contribute to the wiki. But...meh, whatever. :)
  • June 17, 2012
    Huo
    It is a trope though regardless if you consider it tropeworthy. There's also no such thing as YMMV-worthy. All YKTTW are YMMV-worthy that's why it takes a while before something can get launched.
    It just happens that "True Art is..." can be interpreted both ways but both the other articles have successfully portrayed this concept as having tropeworthy potential if the examples are limited to the products, not the reaction.
    I agree with jkbeta though, the problem is in how to make sure the product stands out and not the complaint. At the same time, that's what I like about this.

    TV Tropes tends to be accused for having a skewed demographics. This would be a real challenge because it's a trope that not only challenges the casual editor but even the hardcore editor has to really look into themselves and add something that is really this.
    It's also a rare trope that digs deep past the stereotype common to almost all trope and what it's digging rarely overlaps with other tropes that's why most of the other TV Trope link leads to YMMV-worthy type of reactionary trope with Red Stapler's problem being it deals with the resulting merchandise, not a true trope unlike this. (based on the dictionary definition of a trope).
  • June 17, 2012
    Huo
    As far as the situations, it can but it doesn't need to be as complicated or specific as this:

    "where a specific piece of art is made to attack, address, or discuss something while being transgressive in other dimensions as well, and later works follow the style or other properties, but do so without presenting the message anymore - they copy the "freaky" style, but not whatever was behind it."

    ...made to attack, address or discuss something are a few thing that leads to TV Trope definition of what is True Art. This doesn't mean there aren't other ways to transgress other dimensions. Most of this issue is pretty much issues specific to True Art. True Art is....as the naming convention implies, simply extends from that. This part should be taken for granted. You'd have to expect someone to be able to understand the True Art section before they tackle any trope that starts with True Art is...
    "Without presenting the message anymore" can count but like the Bill Maher joke above, it doesn't have to totally disappear or be censored. In fact the message is often presented. That's often the stage that allows the original True Art to be comprehended and thus become predictable. It just so happens that Follow the Leader type of direction is also allowed but again it's very rare for an actual example to be censored and yet be comprehended. Without this mid-stage to one half of the final stage comprehension, the product can be freaky but not predictably freaky.

  • June 17, 2012
    Huo
    With regards to the name shallow follow the leader or shallow imitation, the problem is that it's often both deep and shallow. That's why people pretend to comprehend it but fail to comprehend it's depth just the same.
    Take TV Tropes as a whole. Shallow people don't have a problem with thinking TV Tropes is straight forward because they don't put gravity in both the recentness of mass wiki usage and they don't put gravity in how TV Tropes unlike other Wikis have managed to transgressed which words are wikified.

    Only more introspective or inspecting people (note I didn't say smarter) would realize that prior to TV Tropes, it would be very hard for a wiki entry, even fan based ones to link one entry with both The Coconut Effect and Slap Slap Kiss and Wholsesome Crossdresser.

    ...but deep thinkers are guilty of this too. One who criticizes TV Tropes can easily be sucked in thinking the skewed demographics of TV Tropes lends to perverted tropes out numbering everything in general where even the tiniest adjective trope that has some mild connection gets put as examples of a child's cartoon even if the child's cartoon wasn't even trying to get crap past the radar such as interpreting all rivalries as Foe Yay or all female interactions as Les Yay.

    The deep thinkers are then too freaked out by this and fail to remember that this is still not only a wiki but just one example of a wiki called TV Tropes. There's no rule that says if someone who's more capable of making a TV Tropes imitation can't fix what the current version failed to do. Remember there was a time when Yahoo seemed like nothing can topple it too until Google.
    Worse, the words imitation implies there is always a 2nd future copy but most often the freakiness comes from the True Art equivalent of comparing Rome to the Fall of Rome or comparing a society who's experienced a great Depression to be unaware and falsely believe mainstream experts who were not only unable to predict the Recession but lead people to making it worse despite the fact that the Great Depression is drilled into that society's head especially when it comes to the experts.
    Follow the Leader doesn't have this problem but what if there's no leader? For example in the art of wiki, while the mods may follow the admin, this doesn't always mean they follow him. They could just as be "keep the status quo until Wordof God quacks and either supports or goes against your opinion" which is why things became freaky.
    Even the previous post by the mod that has been erased by the vandalism alludes to the fact that he and many others feel tired of True Art tropes and yet he contradicts this by making it seem like this is an example instead of a subtrope and doesn't even address why the other True Art exists if his tiredness implies some chink in the idea that the True Art entry is tropeworthy as a whole.

    Based only on the contents of what he revealed, he's neither following the leader, following his role as a mod, following the spirit of TV Tropes - but he isn't not necessarily not following them either as obviously his post implies the desire to create some form of notability and polish to the list of tropes on TV Tropes so that only those notable get to stay. It's a contradiction but a contradiction that he not only accepts but an entire community accepts without really having an objective standard outside of their own Bias Event Horizon and even that isn't an accurate explanation for the organic venetian blind that happens in almost all aspects of life much less this attribute with regards to the Art of Science, the Art of God Worship, the Art of Design, the Art of Marketing, the Art of Selling, the Art of Programming...any thing that can fall within the phrase "Art of" - the one trope criteria that could salvage this from being an entry full of general non-tropeworthy complaints which is why I opted to name it this way.
  • June 17, 2012
    Xtifr
    It's not a trope because it's not an element of fiction, but rather, an observation about fiction. And in its current form, not one I can really make heads nor tails of, either. Maybe a literary criticism site would be a more appropriate place for your thesis? (Though if you're really desperate, we can probably find a place for it here--we've certainly seen much worse.)
  • June 17, 2012
    Huo
    1) Once again, it is both. Just because you fail to get it doesn't mean it isn't. In fact not being able to make heads nor tails of either (whatever either is since you insist on it not being a trope) should be the first sign to yourself that maybe your judgement that it is not a trope is wrong because you already admit you don't know what the hell this is.

    Once again: A little bit less of me vs. you attitude and more "help improve this article" would have gone a long way of solving this misconception so that I don't have to spell it out.

    2) Observation leads to a reaction.

    Example:

    The actress who played Serena Southerlyn on Law and Order observed that the partner to Jack Mc Coy tends to act like his lover. Her observation led her to changing the element of fiction by portraying her character as a lesbian without the notice of the producers, writers, directors, staff memebrs. Later on they caught on and suddenly before she was fired, she was given a dialogue that suddenly made her blurt out that she was a lesbian.

    Does it really need to be spelled out this way to make sense?

    I'm not saying you're dumb but give yourself a little bit of credit here. An observation about fiction can't lead to a change in the element of fiction? The point of any element begins with an observation to begin with. No one suddenly wakes up and declares, "this is an element of fiction". Especially not with tropes.

    The issue is when an observation stays as an observation and this is less of a problem for this than the other True Art is... tropes because this is a double attribute adjective where as the others as singular attribute adjectives that can easily be interpreted as Art is Angsty rather than True Art is Angsty and get away with it. You can't do it with this. If you try to paint it as True Art is Freaky. It won't make sense for it to be predictable. Paint it as True Art becomes Predictable doesn't make it fit the freaky attribute. I's a trope where you can't cheat on the vagueness that is True Art.

    Not only this, how is it a thesis? The actual article isn't lengthy. It's when you have to treat the replier like a toddler and add simple truths like "See Little Timmy? When you observed something then there might just be a good chance that you'd do something different based on that observation. Just remember that when you do, it's no longer just an observation, it's an element of what you did."

    I'd be less harsh towards you if your attempt to paint this as a mere article to introduce complaints or "literary criticism" wasn't so obvious and contradictory. Worse, since when should TV Tropes stoop less to being a site full of tropes that literary criticism sites shouldn't be proud of? What manner of user inflicted flanderization are you trying to pass off here where a trope that is notable for a literary criticism site is suddenly "too good" for TV Tropes?

  • June 18, 2012
    TheHandle
    ^You know, if no-one understands what you say, maybe you should stop and try to rephrase things. People can't help you improve something they don't understand.
  • June 18, 2012
    jkbeta
    @The Handle: I think I slowly understand what he's going on about. I'll post some more thoughts tonight. Nevertheless, this will need tons of effort to make it work.
  • June 18, 2012
    jkbeta
    Ok, I will info-dump what I think I have worked out so far. Warning, this will be long. I'll split what I want to say over three posts.

    The first post is a case of "example as a thesis", and the second a proposed write-up of the concept. In the third post, I shall voice my concerns about how the concept as it stands will probably not work as a trope.

    Let's start with an example then that will explain my understanding of what is proposed here. I'll use metasyntactic variables, since I don't have a good example ready. That means if there's a word you've never seen before, such as quux, consider it a placeholder.

    Alice, an up-and-coming creator of works, is enraged. Those quuxes are frobnicating all the time, and things can't go on like that. So, doing what she does best, she takes her pen/brush/graphics tablet/typewriter and writes/paints/designs a work that breaks this taboo subject. Being as creative as she is, she uses a style that has never been seen before to properly express her thoughts about the subject.

    Now, her creator friend Bob sees her work, and since he's also somewhat bothered by the quuxes, he joins the fun by creating a similar work. Now, he's not quite as creative, so he follows her lead stylistically. Their wider circle of friends includes Carol and Dave, who really love the style and go on to create works in that style while sometimes dropping hints that quuxism is nasty, because that's what's done in here, isn't it? They also start talking about the style as bazianistics, and experiment with all the ways this style could go.

    A few years pass, and people have come to love this style. The evil of quuxes has been vanquished, so the only thing that lingers on is this awesome new style that is, like, totally edgy. Oh yes, there was something about frobnicating, wasn't there? Well, who knows, but those bazianistics are awesome and freaky! (just be sure to stay true to the original style...)

    Some more time passes, and every young creator who thinks he needs to be edgy imitates bazianistics because that style is so awesome, freaky and deep. Books are written about the great psychological implications, conferences are held and so on. Nobody mentions quuxes or frobnication anymore. The style itself has become set in its ways, and Alice's attempts to develop it further are met with confusion.

    This little story sums up my understanding of what is proposed here. On to the next post.
  • June 18, 2012
    jkbeta
    An attempt at a write-up avoiding Example As A Thesis.

    Some works are revolutionary. They bring up a totally new style and push the boundaries of what can be said or shown in fiction. Oftentimes, such works are meant to address a specific topic that is important to the creator, and the revolutionary aspects of the work are tailored to highlighting these themes.

    As is par for the course of successful works, Follow The Leader will ensue. Other artists will imitate the work, either because they like the style or because they have thoughts similar to those of the original creator. Usually, over time, the first group will become dominant, and the actual issue that was expressed in the work becomes less and less important, until only the style remains.

    This trope is about this process: A style or genre that was once created to address an issue becomes a purely aesthetic subject.

    This is, admittedly, a very rough draft.
  • June 18, 2012
    jkbeta
    Finally, some thoughts about all this.

    • What is described here sounds like an interesting point of view on the development of styles, genres and media in general. One point that is problematic about this is that it cannot really work in connection with a single work, since it requires us to consider a long lineage of works for the identification of trends. While we have tropes that have similar properties, such as Genre Launch or the different ways of Playing With A Trope, these can usually be pinpointed to one work or a small number of related works. (For the mathematically-minded people: this concept describes a global property, whereas tropes are local properties.)
    • While the ideas expressed here are quite interesting, I am personally at a loss to find valid examples. While there are some good points in some of the examples (e.g., the over-interpretation that often occurs in school literary classes), I am not sure if they are actually cases of the concept presented here, or would be better described using different, more localized tropes.
    • There is a huge danger that a combination of Fan Myopia and an imperfect description of this trope will lead to extremely low-quality examples - it's quite easy to misinterpret this as "these works are Follow The Leader and I think they're Adaptation Decay, so I'll just list it here".
    • I'm not sure if the things described here are not already covered by various other tropes (or maybe meta-examples of these tropes), such as Follow The Leader, Lost In Imitation, Adaptation Decay, Flanderization and so on.

    I think the major issue to address here is that we need to find a way to make this concept into an actual trope, i.e. something that can be localized to one work or a small, dense cluster of works. Otherwise, it's a (possibly interesting) observation about fiction. Alternatively, this could be reworked into an interesting analysis text for an appropriate trope (how about Follow The Leader? Adaptation Decay?).

  • June 18, 2012
    TheHandle
    Hm. An intersting example would be the succession of cable cartoons. Powerpuff Girls was created as a reaction and parody to the saturation of Sailor Moon on cable tv, but their hardline, simplistic style has become the norm for cartoons later on, and the series itself has become a fountain of cutesy merchandise for little girls, which completely misses the point. By the time Panty And Stocking With Garterbelt came out, they felt like a subversion of a well-established, seen-as-cutesy style, when the original spirit of the Powerpuff Girls was one of whopass.
  • June 18, 2012
    jkbeta
    Sounds quite fitting, actually. I'm not familiar enough with it to tell, though.

    I recall hearing that Rap music started out as a political statement, losing its edge over time. If somebody could fill in details here (actual artists and songs), it might be another valid example.

    How about this: Jane Austen's novels, like Pride And Prejudice, were in part social commentary, but are mainly known for creating the template of modern-day Romantic Comedy. Over time, the genre has grown to significant size, but has often lost its socially critical angle. (Again, I'm not really up-to-date on the genre as it present itself today; I have seen a few romantic comedies, but found them so forgettable that I can't even remember their names).

    Edit: Any thoughts on how to make an actual trope out of this?
  • June 18, 2012
    Huo
    Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, Powerpuff Girl counts but even if you are not familiar with it's development (I'm not) it can be meta-conceptualized as a case of simple became popular. A similar more familiar case to fans of cartoons might be how streamlining Batman for budgetary reasons allowed it to expand the concept of superhero shows with high quality storytelling to superhero team shows with the same quality. The art pervades so much that nowadays the rest of the Timmverse of which Batman: The Animated was the trendsetter looks and feels nothing close to the original series if one simply took a casual first glance at it and the rest of the series:

    (From Wikipedia)

    The New Batman Adventures premiered almost three years after production on Batman: The Animated Series had ended. The animation style was changed significantly from BTAS due to budgetary issues and to have the show more compatible with the smoother Superman: The Animated Series which TNBA would air in tandem with as part of The New Batman/Superman Adventures. The show was later given the same opening title of Batman: The Animated Series when aired in syndication.
  • June 18, 2012
    Huo
    The above examples (including The Handle and jkbeta's) are just one of many proof of how it can be limited to a single work. It might even be said that this is a rare case where it's the reader that insists it can't be limited to a single work through their own rejection of the trope.

    Not only has this been limited to a single work, this has been made into single poster memes.

    Let's take one example of the Conspiracy Keanu:


    If you're familiar with the actual movie the reason this quote might speak to you as profound is that it's a meme based on manipulating the implications found in the actual movie. The explanation then could become a thesis not so much because of the example but because of the need to both explain that the meme is not directly linked to the actor in the meme but by linking it to the actor, the meme has an added layer that penetrates past the actual movie thus producing such predictably freaky attributes as "Fictional" Lost in Imitation, Parody that should be treated Seriously, Adaptation What-If Upgrade Decay, Undo the Leader (leader being the most common view of the movie) and Positive Flanderization (Poking fun at the flaw of a movie only to give new depths to the actual movie) even becoming an Anti-Fan Fan example where the depths are unlocked only through one fan or one phrase maker filling between the lines thanks to the gap of the movie's vague simplicity.
  • June 18, 2012
    Huo
    Pride and Prejudice can fit but it's a bit of a stickler because it's just as much based on an entirely different time period with a different culture as much as it is having a part in influencing Romantic Comedies.

    This large gap could subject it to the flaws of fan interpretation unless explained by someone who knows exactly the influence of Pride and Prejudice to modern Romantic Comedies especially because as many Pride and Prejudice parodies have shown, there's a whole aspect of it that has undergone memetic mutation that it's more of an Outdated Example.

    Not to mention the words Pride and Prejudice themselves don't have as strong a hold in our modern society anymore. The validity of it's premise is strictly on it's process rather than on it's subject.
  • June 18, 2012
    Huo
    The final point is that for the last time, this is a trope. You can't figure out how to make an actual trope out of this when it is already one unless you change it entirely into something else.

    There's a reason why Example as a Thesis goes on to say that: "This isn't to say that the Example As A Thesis is never acceptable—it's just that 90% of the time, it's a weak way to introduce the trope. So if you're considering starting a description with an example, take a minute to think first about whether you should just cut to the chase instead."

    The key phrase not being thesis but "start with an example".

    This goes back to the actual notability of tropes if tropes ever had one.

    Prior to TV Tropes: tropes were not features, tropes need not be tropeworthy, tropes wasn't about whether a trope fits an entry, it wasn't even about whether it was a trope and it was just as YMMMV-worthy.

    Tropes were like quotes. They were objects that can be anything as long as you can use it to deliver an idea but most importantly, tropes were best when they can be utilized instead of just read as trivia.

    That's what the spirit of the Example as Thesis is talking about. If someone were to use the story generator and find each of the entries, do they need to read a book to encompass an idea or do they simply visit it as a trope, check the examples then check the explanation of the example if they don't quite get the example on face value. It was never about the length.

    That's just one of the predictable freaky developments found in TV Tropes. Names should only have one. Names can't have alternative names of the same definition. Names have to follow a certain lingo like length = thesis to make any launched entry sound cool. Sometimes to the point that when referenced only as a title, it's utility is lost in translation and fails to be tropeworthy for actual conversations such as this.

    I admit I don't know how recent the pitch and story generators are but that was the original notability decider for tropes in general. Someone needs to be able to produce something with it if they use it for their fiction or semi-fictional works of art.

    The most important attribute for a trope database though is the likelihood that someone might not be familiar with the nuance of a certain idea hence where knowing the trope helps in narrowing down some idea of the examples you might not have thought of.

    It's utility isn't supposed to be to put nightmare fuel on an entry where a person who has already seen it wouldn't have realized already that it has nightmare fuel on it.

    It's about laying out all the possible differences of why this nightmare fuel is rare or hard to spot in other works with nightmare fuel or how this specific nightmare fuel have more nuances than one would originally consider.

    As a companion attribute: to a person who hasn't seen it but is curious about it, it's not about putting nightmare fuel to tell them it has nightmare fuel. It's putting the notability of it's take on nightmare fuel compared to all other takes on nightmare fuel to narrow down the list of things a searcher needs to be influenced by.

    It's like a concept that would immediately separate someone who wants to write a Stephen King-like horror novel say specifically works of horror on par with The Stand from viewing movies about Zombies as puppets for guns, trucks and locked doors.

    Based on this concept of what a trope is, this article has plenty of problems but one of them is not because it isn't a trope. If you just focus on the product, it's a trope. It's the fact that it can't shrug off the possibility of also being interpreted as an audience reaction that could lead to future problems. At the same time, that is counter-acted by the fact that all True Art articles have that problem and True Art and True Art is... still exists in TV Tropes.

  • June 19, 2012
    jkbeta
    Huo, several comments on what you wrote:

    1. I think you're overestimating the importance of TV Tropes. The concept of a trope is way, way older than this website - just a cursory wikipedia search shows that the term "trope" had been in common use in the 1970s. Due to the greek roots of the name, I consider it likely that the term was already in use in the 19th century, if not earlier. Also, in Books On Trope, several books are listed that deal with different subjects about story-telling, i.e., tropes; Silly Novels By Lady Novelists shows that an analysis of tropes was already done, outside of academia, in the 19th century. Also, on the wikipedia page for "trope", you'll find a link to a rhetoric guide, which deals with tropes and their usage as well (by inference, older rhetoric guides, that date back to antiquity, show that the concepts we deal with are Older Than Feudalism). I could go on and on about this, but let's come to the point: TV Tropes is an interesting development as it provides a nice catalogoue of many major and minor tropes, but this in itself is nothing new except for scale. The fact that we give identifying names to tropes (by the way, a trope can have more than one name - check out redirects) is also not new (rhetorical devices also have well-known names); if it's noteworthy at all, we're just following the traditions of encyclopedia and science here, which is, at most, a general Wiki Trope. This is not to say that TV Tropes is not a great thing.

    2. I'm still not really convinced that this trope is sufficiently distinct from other tropes. In fact, I am convinced that there's another, more basic trope hiding in here, making this a meta-trope based on that concept. My basic trope could be summed up as "Something has properties A and B, where A is meant to be the important category and B is meant to underline A. For some reason, it becomes known for B instead, and A is ignored." Use this as a meta-trope and couple it with Follow The Leader, and we have the exact trope that is described here.

    Random thought: This concept is related, in a slightly weird way, to Cargo Cult.
  • June 19, 2012
    Huo
    No you have it backwards, I wasn't trying to explain the importance of TV Tropes at all. I was highlighting the freaky mutation TV Tropes went through precisely by bringing back the common old adage of what a trope is.

    In the old days and to people who still know what a trope is today when conversing casually, there's no such thing as a notable trope. It's like a nickname. There are clear common nicknames like Bob to Bobby and then there are weird memetic mutation like Bob to Robert but like nicknames, there's no such thing as nickworthy and this was a direct reply to your statement about Example as Thesis. There's no this is not tropeworthy rule because it is inviting Example as Thesis ever. There are still other points in that previous reply but this is the main gist that replies to both of your point.
    If you don't want to dig that then my simple empirical counter to point #2 is that not really convinced is not evidence. If you're not convinced, convince yourself one way or the other but that's not notable enough as a criticism against this article and all it does is incite similarly minded mobs to convince a mod to intervene.

    It's not that you can't make everyone aware of this but don't make the mistake everyone else (including you earlier) did by making this about you. The reply box is not Facebook. It's not a space where you post I am unconvinced. I may not know the official rules of TV Tropes but it is clear at least that the spirit of the reply box is to improve the article and point out a section of why it is not notable but not to post about what each of us feel about an article we are unsure of. Especially not when you took the length of time just to gather an idea of this trope. Now that you understand it, contribute to it so that once the trope becomes sharper and better, you can better decide whether it is a trope or not. As it is now, it's more like you're hoping someone agrees or disagrees with you and the result of that will always be people arguing about why their own personal bias is correct instead of helping out with polishing the YKTTW.
    Another thing:

    1 trope + 1 trope = 1 Fused trope.

    By making this case, you're contradicting your own suspicions by mixing your "this is not a trope" case with your "sufficiently distinct from other trope" case.

    Not to mention by saying you can couple two basic tropes underneath it, only those who have prejudged this article would agree that this impression means it is not a sufficiently distinct trope.

    Anyone who reads your statement objectively could easily surmise that what you are actually presenting is impression not of this being insufficiently distinct but of the possibility that this trope may be an index trope (a meta-trope in your own words) rather than a mere 1 article trope.

    A meta-trope who has no comparable launched already meta-trope does count as a sufficienctly distinct trope, hence again, there haven't been any actual objective evidence presented that this is not a trope nor not a sufficiently distinct trope. All the replies so far is saying is that this doesn't sound tropeworthy "to them". Not that this fails any attribute of being a trope.


    Cargo Cult does not take into account things like the long term misconception about The Prince. (One of the books linked to the cracked.com article).

    People didn't worship The Prince. Even those whose bias may align with The Prince has less to do with the perception of Machiavelli compared to those who wanted to slander him. Where's the Cargo Cult in that?

    The relation is not weird at all. Most cults tend to insist on one view. Therefore being that this is a view that has mutated in two contradicting directions, cults being one of those groups that have power to insist upon a viewpoint towards a larger mass of belief is related.

    Cargo Cult having the word Cult in it, it seems to be related. But really it could be Cargo Conspiracy Theorist and it would seem related too.

    Related only because fiction in general is made by humans and some humans have found the power of propaganda in both fiction and fictional analysis.
  • June 19, 2012
    TheHandle
    So, how about this: "This work was the cutting edge in its field, designed towards cutting enemies down with violence. But it has become a victim of its simple, streamlined beauty: now it's an ornamental piece, to be hung on a wall or worn as part of a dress uniform."
  • June 19, 2012
    Huo
    Sorry, I'm missing something. Which work are you referring to?

    It also sorts of jump around (although that could be taken for granted for this trope) but you haven't yet defined what's cutting edge about the work and the design part sounds anti-cutting edge. Isn't cutting down enemies supposed to be violent in the first place?

    An ornamental piece isn't freaky as well much less predictably freaky. The concept of ornaments are pretty much items at a state of non-use. It is very possible for said work to have been an ornament even when it was widely used simply for the fact that as the paragraph alludes to, it was beautiful.

  • June 19, 2012
    animeg3282
    He is using a metaphor to explain your idea more clearly
  • June 19, 2012
    Huo
    Thanks for confirming.

    It's a bad metaphor. Not bad as in wrong but bad as even when I originally wanted to suspect it as an attempted definition, the counter reasons simply show how it wasn't worth mentioning.

    Such things like adding even more arbitrary attributes such as cutting edge and victims to limiting it to things implying it's a curse of the original material's attributes.

    It just works better as a specific singular example than anything dealing with the main definition. Metaphor or not, analogy or not, simplicity or not...it just doesn't work that well at clearing anything up without changing the article entirely.
  • June 19, 2012
    Fighteer
    We do not need more meta-commentary tropes. Your examples list is not an examples list, it's a genre-by-genre rant about some kind of perceived decay. This is not a trope nor is it an audience reaction or anything else. It's a bad idea.
  • December 19, 2014
    pokedude10
    This has been on the salvage list for far too long now. I'm going to agree with @Fighteer. This is not a trope in any way, shape, or form.

    While the concept is logical, although a little unstructured, I don't believe it belongs here. On a personal blog or as an english paper sure. But this is not a trope, supertrope, index, work, or any other kind of page that belongs here.

    I'd like to move to wrap this up by discarding this. (I'm afraid I've been away from TV tropes for too long, has the process for discarding a Ykttw changed much?)
  • December 19, 2014
    DAN004
    ^ Kill this with Hell Fire nao.
  • December 19, 2014
    Darksilverhawk
    Agreed. Motion to discard.
  • December 19, 2014
    pokedude10
    Alright, that makes three. Discarding in 3..2..1
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=tugmbug8sldpney5oq8z0f20