I don't see anything that stops emotionally harming a hero from prodding him into action. I would say that Batman doesn't count because he has a less traditional family, but I wouldn't say listing him means people are misusing the trope. I think it's more a sign that they don't know the character in his case. It's not something a casual Batman fan might necessarily pick up on.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
I don't see anything that stops emotionally harming a hero from prodding him into action.Of course not. Just saying that it's not part of the trope definition.
No, and it doesn't need to be. Trope definitions don't need to cover all combinations of tropes.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Well, I was just saying that the extra stuff prevents the trope from applying in that case. If it's not in the definition, and an example acts as though something extra is vital to its use, that seems to me to be a misuse.
... Okay, that'll be it from me. This is totally off topic. Back to the trope at hand. :)
Another vote for "prove it's being misused before we change anything". And for "All Heroes Are Orphans is not what this trope is about at all".
Bump. It's been months.
Dragon Writer
Not all heroes are orphans, but perhaps Orphaned Protagonist could work as a title/redirect.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
This trope is not Orphaned Protagonist. This trope is "Our protagonist is an orphan because if he had parents they'd just get in the way of the plot."
Parentless Protagnoist For Plot Purposes? Ok, it's probably overkill, but I couldn't resist.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Dragon Writer
@Meta: Hmm, I don't see why that makes any difference. The trope isn't a "list of protagonists who were orphans", and the article gets right to the point in saying that the reason the author made them an orphan was so they could be free of familial obligations.
edited 18th May '11 9:45:09 PM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
Right, and we want a title that reflects that specific meaning, not a title that will invite everyone who reads it to think the trope is about every orphaned protagonist, ever.
Dragon Writer
No, that sounds like it's confined to small children, and not really protagonists. It makes me think more Artful Dodger than this trope.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
What I was saying is that Batman has strong ties to Gotham and has a family (of sorts, who try to get him to do/not do stuff but fail). That seems to leave him out. Same with my hypothetical character; if he's on a worldwide quest to avenge his parents, doesn't applying this trope to him seem a little circular (in that he wouldn't be on it at all if it weren't for his orphan-hood)?
I hope I'm expressing my confusion accurately, because I'm having a hard enough time figuring out how!
(Aside: I thought Fridge Stuffing was, by definition, specifically to emotionally harm the hero, not necessarily to prod him into taking any sort of action?)