Food for thought

I've only been hanging out here for a few months and while I enjoy what I read I thought I'd share a notion that's just now taken shape.

This site seems to be devoted to the cause of dissecting a story into its functional elements; figuring out what makes said story "work" and analyzing both the tools and our emotional reactions to them.

Laudable enough goals to be sure. After all, a would-be storyteller benefits from such knowledge, right?

I'm not so sure.

In trying to categorize inspiration, we as tropers murder the inspiration itself. One cannot perform a dissection on any living creature without first killing it; in trying to figure out how something works, we savage the example until it can no longer breathe.

I see this in a good many posts here, as people try and codify their creativity into the filing system established on this site. I read one neutered tale after another, and it seems that the childlike magic that births myth is buried under an avalanche of precocious and cynical knowledge.

Certainly, understanding how a story relates to human nature cannot be a wholly bad thing. A small grasp of universal storytellng method helps a writer/artist bring their vision to the audience. But at some point, knowledge gives way to cynicism and that's where things begin to suck.

Why do we love some works and despise others? In my opinion, those that touch us do so because they are honest. The creator was not trying to manipulate us in any way; they merely sought to tell us a story, and didn't care about tropes or market share or any other real-world bullshit. They retained their innocence, and enough of that remained in their tale to pierce our intellect and caress our delicate hearts.

Tropes are a form of manipulation; to use them by accident is forgivable enrichment, to use them on purpose a form of spiritual violation. We don't mind a good story, but we hate a piece of preachy tripe. Why? Because one is love and the other is mere seduction.

No one likes being manipulated...at least when the puppet strings are immediately apparent.

I think everyone here (including myself) would do well to remember the following; tropes are not bad. Tropes are not good. They merely exist, and an attempt to consciously harness their power will always end in disaster. This, in my opinion, is why Executive Meddling always kills a promising tale, and why the product of corporate focus groups will never give us anything resembling emotional satisfaction.

Cynicism is the antithesis of idealism. And a true cynic never told a good story; they've only sold them. So, tell your story...but try not to give to much of a shit about what tropes you are or are not employing.

Peace,

The Drunk Scriblerian

Note: I invite anyone who's planning on ripping this post apart to carefully read it twice and think about what I'm trying to say before writing a response.

I agree. I'd much rather hear about characters, settings, etc. in the creator's words than in links to Tropepedia entries (which aren't specific to any single character for a reason - aside from "The Janitor"). Because I don't have complete knowledge of everything in the Tropepedia, I have to click the link and read the Tropepedia article just to understand what the forum member is posting, too.

I also think a better work of art will be made if the artist doesn't consider the business or formulaic components, even though I am personally guilty of considering the business component.

edited 25th Dec '10 3:16:23 AM by colbertimposter

I can see where you're coming from with dissection, but I don't agree with what you're saying about honesty. I don't think that honesty has a lot to do with writing a good story (if it did, I'd be a lot better at writing them) and I personally do enjoy being manipulated, at least in the context of reading or watching a film. I don't want my intellect pierced, I want to be able to use it to look at all the layers of a story, and characters, and plot. I want to be able to read the same book again every six months or so and find something new in it every time. If I want my delicate heart caressed, I'll go and have a mushy Kodak moment with my family and friends. If I want to have a new perspective opened up to me, or to have something new to think about and take apart in my head, I'll read a book, and the best part of that for me will be the process of trying to understand it.

I have thought the same thing over the past few months. I watch as people separate their characters into various tropes, and it just feels so disconnected from anything I can call a character. It is not... alive.

I have wanted to share my characters to the Troper community, but I believe that the best way to show them is to write stories with them in it. A writer's characters do contain tropes, but a good writer's characters are people. They live, laugh, love, and push on through troubles just like you or me. It is their struggles that we remember and carry on to our children.

That said I am very confused by your use of the word "Manipulation", does it mean that the author cannot warp the reader's perspective of the story or the story cannot have a Writer on Board?

It's hard for me to comment on these sort of things, because I feel I do not do this, so reading this makes it hard to empathize.

That being said, if you see me doing this, feel free to call me out for it.

Well, I never consciously try to put tropes into a story (that is, "now I'm going to have a Squishy Wizard, now there's gonna be a Prophecy Twist..."). My method is to just write what ideas I find interesting. After it's complete I might look through it and see what tropes apply.

I do the same thing...I find myself looking for tropes when rereading stuff I've written. But since I started looking at TV Tropes it's really increased my enjoyment of analysing other people's work, especially characters. That's what makes it fun for me.

To quote a post elsewhere in this very forum (The "quitting Writer's Block" thread).

Tropes and me:

I'm aware of a great many tropes and actively try to use as many as I can find, but only if the trope works in the sense that it answers one key question: "Can I build a scenario or story around this and make it improve the overall work in general?" Many times this answers yes. Others not quite.

Characterization wise I'll only add intentional trope usage if I can actually work the trope in as if I could find someone in reality who exhibits such behaviors.

In short, good story and good characterization come first for me, trope usage is only supplementary and only then if it improves good story and good characterization.

First of all I must say that I definitely don't think of tropes when writing a story. And I think most people here don't either, they just find it easier to just list 10 tropes instead of writing pages and pages of description. Even if we learn much less about their characters that way.

That said, I completely disagree with you.

I can't see how categorizing inspiration kills inspiration, and I certainly don't see how "honest" stories are better than the "manipulating" ones. A story completely honest, and made for the sake of making a story can be horrible. A story carefully planned so it will emotionally affect the audience through use of "artificial" methods can be great. I'd even say chances of it being good are even better than the first one, because the author is required to put more thought and work to it.

On the other hand, I agree that trying to attract more sales will nine times out of ten do much more harm than good. For example, like the rule that every movie has to include a love story, which makes the writers squish a shallow love interest in the story who does nothing but waste precious movie time and irritating me. But that's not what I was referring to in the above paragraph, it's a completely different thing.

My point is, I don't think that trying to be honest and just tell your story matters at all. Categorizing inspiration and using various techniques to manipulate your audience isn't bad either. Like you said, Tropes Are Tools. If including them makes your story worse, then its your fault, not theirs.

I do think this site can inspire a type of fourth-wall-breaking that undermines any connection the reader might make to the characters—but then again, people (other than me) loved The Unbearable Lightness of Being, so maybe that's not a bad thing. I also think it can inspire the nerd equivalent of hipsterism, a sort of "Look at how I'm playing with this trope! Aren't I so quirky!"—but then again, people (other than me) loved Psychonauts. On the more positive side, it might inspire people to break the patterns that so many authors railroad their stories into even when they don't make sense—but people (other than me) loved Battle Royale too, so overall I'll call this site neutral.

edited 28th Dec '10 8:31:20 PM by feotakahari

I've been building worlds, settings, and charaters since long before I discovered TV Tropes.

Occasionally, I may use a trope to get a point across better.

But lists of tropes... They turn me off looking at anything past them. Something like a Tropes article is fine, but when you're trying to describe a concept?

Then again, I'm not a brilliant writer myself. I'm rather sub-par, so perhaps it would be better if you listened to some of the other people posting in this thread.

There's always more to a character than a collection of tropes. They have a sort of... flavour in your head, for lack of a better word, that you only really get a handle on from reading/thinking about them for a while. They've got to have a personality beyond a handful of tropes.