Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
Rule of Three: It's a sort of complusion I have really bad. If I do something one time, I'm fine, but if I do it twice I feel that I have to do it a third time. I try to insert the number three in everything I do at the TV Tropes.
Tropes Applied to ATC by Tropers:
Bookworm - Due to your book collection, I have yet decided if you have the potential for memetic status, then again I have no clue.... - The Watcher of the Void
Settings I want to write stories in / Characters and plots I want in my stories.
I want to write a series where Geoffrey Chaucer is the Kamina to William Shakespeare's Simon.
I also want to write a story set in a world where the libraries of Alexandria and Persia never burned down, and Alexander The Great was able to forge the empires of Greece and Persia into a single Empire with a single culture. Adn where Hero of Alexandria's steam engine, combined with the Persian knowledge of railways allowed them to make trains in ancient Greece and Egypt. A sort of steampunk-greecepersia-wildwildwest setting.
And then I'd make a sequel series where India, Japan, and China combine as a single empire to fend off the Mongolian Golden Horde and succeed in both crushing the Mongols before they took all of Asia over, and stayed a single empire. Meanwhile, all the culture of North and South America would unite, and start colonizing Antartica. Meanwhile, Russia and parts of Europe would join the aforementioned greecepersia place, which is trying to develop air and space travel.
And then I'd make a sequel series where the America's discover India, Japan, and China before greecerussiapersiaeuropeparts and try to take them over, leading Indiajapanchina to discover and call upon the greecerussiapersia for aid. Adn then I'd have a bunch of complicated alliances and betrayals and wars, leading to a big techonology information wars race, which is only ended when the Aborigines arrive from Australia with their Printing Presses, and everybody goes all renaissance-spacetravel.
The Nine Steps of stuff.
Step one: Is there a problem/goal/want/need?
Ex: Yes. I'm hungry.
Step two: Have you talked about it.
Ex: I have now.
Step three: Now that you've talked about it, can you explain the problem/goal/want/need?
Ex: I need food and I don't have it.
Step Four: Now that you've explained the problem, can you explain the solution?
Ex: I know! I'll eat a gazelle.
Step Five: Is that solution workable (if not, redefine the solution).
Ex: No, there aren't any gazelles nearby. I guess I'll eat a cookie.
Step Six: What are you doing to fix the problem/accomplish the goal/get what you need or want?
EX: Looking for a darn cookie.
Step Seven: Have you succeeded yet (if not, either redifine the plan or keep trying)?
Ex: Nope. Where are the cookies?
Step Eight: Now you have succeeded!
Ex: So, that's where the cookies are. They're cleverly hidden in the tacos.
Step Nine: What are you going to do next:
Ex: Either: 1: OM NOM NOM. 2: Make a sandwhich. or 3: Store cookies for later use.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Was my favorite series ever, until I read the last book. I got really depressed, especially when I learned that Douglas Adams was dead, so it would never be fixed. Then I discovered Discworld and all was sweetness and light.
Thursday Next I've only read the first book in the series, but I really, really, love it.
Everybody has to have something that they just won’t do/accept/allow. For example someone might say: “I can lie, cheat, and steal, but I will never abandon a friend. Ever”.
Another universal thing is the tendency to randomly except something. For example, someone might say: “I hate all books by this author. Except this one, which I like.”
Things that are bad/awful/annoying enough become awesome. For example, levels in video games that are so hard, so frustrating, so make-you-spend-lots-of-time-and-lose-tons-of-lives that they become awesome epic amazing fun! It’s so hard that it becomes familiar and you get used to the level and like it, and it makes you a better player.
Things that are slightly less bad/awful/annoying are just not enjoyable, though, for some inexplicable reason.
People like villains, and often consider them more interesting than heroes. There is a sort of grandeur in evil, a magnificence to it.
It is the villains who create and cause stories. Villains produce, create, ad make things like a base, a plan, a career for minions, death traps, devices, and other things; so that they may destroy or take over. Villains are the active/proactive characters of the story. Villains can fill their role without heroes. Heroes cannot fulfill their role without villains.
Heroes are the reactive/responsive ones in narratives. Heroes destroy, mess up, and ruin things like a lair, a plot, the lives of minions, other stuff, and contraptions; so that they may save and preserve. A villain proactively creates to destroy/conquer, a hero reactively destroys to save/preserve.
Heroes often don't kill the villains, not because they're stupid. It's because Heroes value the protection and preservation of the innocent over the punishment of the guilty. The Hero's purpose and goal is to save or help other people, wheras the villain is completely self-serving and self-obsessed. The hero is the one whose vision goes beyond himself.
A Hero must be more than a hero, he must protect those who adventure with him, the innocents he comes across, and everybody the Villain might negatively impact. The hero must be responsible for others, the villain doesn't have to be responsible for anybody other than himself/herself.
There is very large difference between "bad" and "evil". People prefer “evil” to “bad”. Jar Jar Binks is bad, Darth Vader is evil. An evil character is interesting and often well-written, in addition to being essential to the story, while a bad character is boring and poorly written, in addition to usually contributing nothing to the story.
It is disturbing that many people value being “cool” so much that they sacrifice such a quantity of other things for it. Large numbers of students in schools would rather die than not be “cool”, and would rather risk life and limb than risk admitting that what they believe is “cool”/the “cool” that they’re trying to be isn’t “cool”. They alienate certain other people who don’t fit their definition of cool, because of this type of reasoning: ‘if he’s cool, then that means that I’m not cool’.
If only we could all just abandon the notion that there is one true and difinitive way to be “cool”, or lose the idea that there even is “cool” at all; if we could stop alienating others, behaving differently just to live up to a stupid idea of “cool”; if we could act as we really are (not fully, just stop hiding behind a facade of “coolness”); what would we find in each other, who would we see?
The rules of fiction are as follows:
The hero is automatically the coolest.
Nobody is allowed to be cooler than the hero.
Anybody cooler than the hero must die, so that the hero can be the coolest.
The villain is defined as being cooler than the hero.
This is why the hero kills the villain.
The old-mentor-guy that trains the hero is always much cooler than the hero.
This is exactly why this guy dies once he can no longer train the hero.
The sidekick is always slightly less cool, but lots more useful/effective than the hero.
The side characters and sidekick(s) are always better written and more interesting than the hero.
Scratch that, everybody is better written and more interesting than the hero.
I have a theory that background characters and Mooks come back to life when killed, which is why there always seem to be so many of them, and why it's okay for the hero to kill them but spare the villain because "heroes don't kill".
This means that the mooks the hero kills are essentially the same as the background characters he or she is fighting to save.
Stories are about change. The hero starts out as nonimportant, a "nobody", and ends up a legend. The villain starts out (in the context of the story) as a powerful person who changes into a defeated, powerless, individual.
This is why every (yuck) Disney protagonist starts out as a loser.
Therefore, Charlie Brown will eventually become the most powerful and successful person in the universe by the end of his story.
Also, Chuck Norris, because of this, is destined to be defeated fully by the end
In video games, saved games and extra lives are essentially the same thing: Multiple chances. They should never have been combined.
Tarantulas are cute.
Approximately one in every twenty or two-hundred words used is a swear or a cuss word. In a language with over one million words, that is unacceptable, in addition to being disgusting. People should state their opinions reasonably, with a larger variety of words, and explain why they feel the way they feel instead of just being vulgar.
I really like the Jasper Fforde style of writing. The first half of the books are spent setting up and describing the characters and setting, and it's really boring. Then, the second half comes and the tension mounts, Chekhov's Guns from the first half get fired, puns that were meticulously set up happen, everything just gets EPIC BEYOND BELIEF, and the plot picks up at amazing speed. It's well worth the wait, because of the build up to the climax.
This is quite like listening to the 1812 overture note also known as: The most awesome music in the history of music. which is extremely slow and boring for about ninety percent of it, adn then the last couple of minutes go through all the melodies in the last parts, extremely loud and fast and intense and the appropriate response is "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww Ya-eah! This is awesome!". This ending loses it's effect when not preceded by the boring lead-up, however.
Another favorite thing is that moment, that very precise moment, when things come together and are interesting and everything just fits like a puzzle. The appropriate response is "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww Ha! Eureka!" followed by immense satisfaction.
Yet another great moment with lots of build up is that point in a story when everything just goes to heck for the good guys and it seems like there's no way out and everything has been building up to this. The appropriate response is "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww Crud! This is going to be bad".
There are two main kinds of adaptation. The first is adapting a story from one medium to another, like adapting a comic book to a television series. Another is adapting a story from one time or place to another, like playing greek tragedies in a modern stage production. The first is a change in the execution style, whereas the second is a change in the setting.
I learned most of my computer skills (which, like all my skills, are impractical and sometimes interesting) tinkering with getting into TV Tropes when I was just a reader. I learned most of my mess-a-computer-up skills trying to edit tv tropes secretly as an unknown at school. And I learned all of my figure-out-how-to-mess-up-other-people's-attempts-to-do-stuff-with-a-computer at school using this site as a known troper.
TV Tropes is best experienced when you shouldn't be on it. When you have to hide the tabs. When you have to work on the computer, but you are secretly reading tropes at the same time and getting skills in subtlety, hiding, and other stuff.
To simply be able to be on TV Tropes without messing with stuff makes the site just too hard to read staring at a computer. I feel bad when I don't have to trick and mess around to get to the site, or take breaks so that people don't notice my addiction.
Inconvenience is good. It and curiosity are the best teachers I know.
Notice that neither change the plot or characters change. In other words, What happens and Who it happens to stay the same, though either How you tell it or When and Where it happens change. In a nutshell, Who and What are constant, but Where, When, and/or How aren’t.
Way back when, when the written and spoken word were widely separate, enough that they could just about be called two different languages, there was a movement to make the written words more like the spoken words. It started, perhaps, with newspapers and their headlines, with their minimal space for words, where grammar was sacrificed and only the essential words were kept. Dead Duke Found In Stable! Or whatever fit the times, the headlines would say.
Writers were told to write as they spoke, to write to the lowest common denominator and write only in a way that would be easily understandable. There was a tendency for monosyllabism, and it seemed like the written word was becoming merely a shadow of the spoken word.
Even today, some authors are told to write as they speak and avoid multisyllabic, archaic, and obscure words.
But these mass-produced, easily understandable, simply worded writings brought with them much mass literacy. Because of this, the written word skyrocketed.
And since then, the written and spoken English languages have become more distinct and apart. People don’t usually write how they speak and they don’t usually speak how they write.
Also, other entertainment and news sources, like television, have taken the niche of the lowest common denominator.
Language is a multisensory experience. There is the look of a word written down, the feeling in the hands in writing the word, the sound of a word when said, the taste in the throat of saying the word (taste is very much connected to smell, so this counts for both).
Words are made of little words, letter-groups, and syllables. Each of these has their own meaning. For example, the letter group “Magna/Magne/Magni” appears in “Magnificent”, “Magnanimous”, “Magnify”; the little word “spiri” appears in “Aspiring”, “Inspiring” “conspiring”, “Transpiring”; the syllable “tion” appears in “Flotation”, “Contraption”, “Nation”.
The word "book" comes from the anglo-saxon word "beeche", meaning tree (and the beeche or beech tree was the one from which books were made). So, the word book literally refers, etymologically, to something that comes from a tree. Thus, there cannot be an electronic book until trees start generating electricity.
There is something, a wonderful and magnificent something, in the written word that is found nowhere else. Something in the unchanging words, that you can read repeatedly, something about moments captured and pinned down in a timeless form within the pages of a book, something in the way you see the worlds while only looking at what might be called black patterns on white paper. Something in the books that makes you smell, hear, feel, taste, and see what is described, something that takes you in and makes you a part of the story, an all-powerful observer who can chose what parts to read, and yet a powerless observer who can not change or influence anything, but can only go along. Something in the voice of the reader as they read the words out loud, in the voice of the author in the words they write, something in the voice of the words themselves. Something in how the words themselves never change, but are never read the same way by two readers, or by the same reader at the different times, and how you can read a story at two different times in your life, and it will be different, but the story didn’t change, you, the reader, changed. Something in how all of these elements come together and become so much more than the sum of the parts. And something else, something there isn’t a word for, something that can’t be explained nor described, that is there in the written word.
Vandalize ATC Here:
This line of words here makes the page look better.
Hi, I'm breaking the seal on your page. :p . Aliroz is a pretty cool guy. - elemcee
Lord_Fenric here, new troper reutning the favor for the graffiti you posted on my page. Glad to see you've done a Phlebotinum page, love those tropes. Also love almond ice cream...Likewise agree you seem a pretty cool guy
Hello, Aliroz. Thanks for the gush on the thread, I was gone for a few days so I couldn't respond! You're a pretty awesome guy, dude. - Gentlemanorcus
Oh, wow! I'm glad to see you here on my nice little contributor's page.
That didn't occur to me. You are a being of much wisdom, my good sir.
Mamanerd has appeared to return the graffiti goodness, haha! Thanks for the NERD POWAH lurve :D
Knowledge equals power. Therefore, nerds, like yourself are among the most powerful individuals in the world..
Hi! Iamdatroper here, tipping you my imaginary porkpie hat! :D Love your icon, BTW.
Hi! I'm back! I see you wrote on my Wall, so I'm writing on yours. (OMG, this is just like Facebook! :O) In answer to your question, I don't really know who my favorite fictional character is. I've always sympathized with the underdog, I guess—not the underdog that the work would have you rooting for, which would be a hero or somesuch, but rather the character on the work who's underrated, unappreciated, made fun of, or even just not shown deeply enough in canon.
One such example is Jack Fenton, from DannyPhantom; I've always sympathized with him, since, even though the show makes him out to be a bumbling, comedy-relief idiot, he's really not. He and his wife are largely responsible for opening up a portal to the netherworld, and he's constantly shown tinkering with ghost technology. His best friend is actually his worst enemy, although he doesn't know it until the Grand Finale, which is. . .a little odd, given how smart he ought to be. I realize that he's mostly played for laughs, naturally, but frankly I find that there's so much that could have been done with the character that wasn't. . . . I mean, he must have been through a lot of stress in his life, given everything, yet he's constantly seen being happy and excited. I can only wonder at how he really feels toward everything, or how deep a character he could be if written properly.
Sorry if that turned out kinda long. . . . I guess I'm kinda in a forum-board mode. ;P So who's your favorite fictional character? :)
I have quite a few, but the number one for me is Rincewind the Wizzard from Discworld. There's just something so awesome about that coward, especially when he yells at his conscience, puts away his cowardice despite himself, and does something awesome, like in Sourcery, which is one of my favorite Discworld books. I would say Death, but he is sort of mean in The Color Of Magic, while Rincewind has always been great. So Rincewind is consistent, but Death is even better. I only gave the Wizzard a better placing for being always good, rather than usually great.
My God. His hat is so awesome that it's concentrated hat energies has transfered to his avatar. THE SCIENCE DOES NOT LIE!-rifflet
My good fellow, we wouldn't trust SCIENCE if it lied. FOR SCIENCE!
Greetings, O Confused One. You are a funny person. - Imipolex G
Nice to see a good person like you around here, Imi.
I theorize A LOT. Sometimes as an unknown troper. I am also crazy. People started theorizing about me on the forums, and I just added a page for these theories on the main site. So, I would advise you to theorize a lot, not reveal too much about yourself, and mention wierd things to give the theorists something to theorize about.
Crocodiles wearing top hats and sunglasses can only be cooler if they're the mascot of a fun and cool person. Or if they replaced the glasses by a monocle but hey, try telling that to a crocodile. He'll probably gentlemanly rip your limbs apart and carve your bones into a finely crafted cane. Good day sir, have a good time. Metal Jesus.