Why are Complete Monster and Moral Event Horizon subjective?

Yes, I know, moronic question. I really hope they weren't subjective because of fanwank.

I can think of more than one example where Complete Monster and Moral Event Horizon are treated as such in-story, not some sort of fan reaction.

We've tried to make them objective. Believe me. But in the end, there is no way to get past the fact that people will argue for their interpretations of what constitutes each of those tropes, and that makes them subjective. If one of these is used intentionally in-work, then you can use the In-Universe phrase to keep the example from being flagged subjective.

Is there a objective-counterpart to Complete Monster for the wiki, where the character in question is the absolute worst as made by the author, rather than as interpreted by the reader?

That way there could be a difference between "He's the evilest character in my eyes" and "He's the evilest character I wrote in this story?"

Or is Complete Monster supposed to cover both of them?

I thought Moral Event Horizon was always supposed to be an audience reaction - the point where viewers started treating the character as irredeemable.

Most people are different when it comes to anything. Some days I wish Humans Dont Think Alike was a trope that sat along side of Your Mileage May Vary, to get rid of the whole "majority rule" mindsets listed in most of the discussions based on morals and ethics around certain tropes.

edited 2nd Feb '11 5:26:38 PM by Vorpy

That's They Plotted a Perfectly Good Waste.

So, wait, we've declared them subjective because people argue over it, even when the author of the work is (attempting) to intentionally invoke them? Even if in the text someone is called out specifically as "You're a complete monster" or "You've crossed the moral event horizon"?

There's a difference between subjectivity and people arguing over something. There have been plenty of examples of people arguing over almost every trope on here.

The Problem with Moral Event Horizon is where that horizon lies varies from person to person.

Complete monster was supposed to be subjective but there are cases where it can be considered point of view of the reader rather then just in universe. Which applies to a few other tropes that have some similar issues.

^^In-universe examples of subjective tropes, such as those direct invocations, are allowed on main pages.

edited 2nd Feb '11 6:36:00 PM by INUH

I didn't know Moral Event Horizon was supposed to be applied to the viewer, and not the Morality within the story.

I think it's kind of either-both. The problem with the trope is that listing an example requires making assumptions about the nature of morality.

I guess the area it covers isn't specifically defined so in some stories the Moral Event Horizon is defined on the fanbase, not what the characters are doing.

Isn't that also true for things like Kick the Dog, though? Not in every case, obviously, but in a lot of them. I mean, heck, in the Kick the Dog description it specifically mentions that its intended for an audience reaction.

I guess I just don't see what makes Kick the Dog objective and Moral Event Horizon subjective, especially when you look at a lot of the examples.

Perhaps the Moral Event Horizon page can be cut down to house only examples of unforgiveable actions and characters in the story, rather than what the viewers think is unforgiveable. Sometimes people will think the soldier killing the peasants is more evil than the captain that's ordering him to, sometimes the viewers will think the captain is far more evil. If something is vague like that, then it's difficult to trope correctly without being subjective.

edited 2nd Feb '11 7:40:20 PM by Vorpy

Look, I'm new to the forums for the most part, so maybe I'm not clear on how Subjective is used on here, but baring word of god, isn't everything subjective to a degree? How do you suggest people weed out 'subjective' examples of Moral Event Horizon versus objective examples?

That applies specifically to Kick the Dog, which I see as the other side of the issue from Moral Event Horizon (since usually a character crosses the Moral Event Horizon when they Kick the Dog). You can make a reasonably strong argument for most of the examples on the Kick the Dog page (at least the ones that are not literal animal kicking) that they're not Kicking the Dog.

edited 2nd Feb '11 7:56:19 PM by Ramenth

Saying "everything is subjective" doesn't really work as an argument for anything. If you say that someone demonstrates Slouch of Villainy and aren't really obviously wrong, I can't reasonably contradict that. If you say that he's a complete monster, I can argue that he might be able to redeem himself under better circumstances.

That isn't what I'm trying to argue. What I'm trying to say is that a trope like Kick the Dog leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation. Take a look at the first example on the page of Naruto. How is that a Kick the Dog moment? Neji redeems himself later. It's not showing his meanness (in my opinion), it's showing his mental issues.

Right. Kick the Dog is a mean act for which it's possible to redeem yourself. I'm not especially familiar with Naruto, but that seems like a pretty good example of the trope, given what you've said.

edited 2nd Feb '11 8:01:09 PM by INUH

Not according to the entry. I quote from the article. "This is the audience's cue that it's "okay" for the character to meet their end, whether they actually get their just desserts or not. While not all villains kick the dog, dog kicking is a sure sign that the writers want the audience to be wary of this character, even if he is nominally one of the good guys."

It's not "You can redeem yourself from this" at all. It's "This is intended to make the audience believe that the character is irredeemable and its okay if they die."

Then the description is poorly phrased and misleading. Does Kick The Dog need to head over to TRS for a rewrite?

edited 2nd Feb '11 8:05:48 PM by INUH

It is? Because I've never heard Kick the Dog used in the context you're using it. I've always heard it referred to as a puppykicking moment of evil. Your interpretation of it does not seem to be the version used in most of the examples either.

I guess now I'm doubly confused.

It's not supposed to imply irredimability, though. That's Moral Event Horizon. If Kick the Dog does mean the character is irredeemable, we have a far worse problem on our hands because they're the same trope.

Kick the Dog is = the villain reminding you why they are the villain.

Moral Event Horizon = somebody doing something that is unforgivable in their universe.

Correct? The laconic of both of them summarizes them and gives you a good idea on which is which.

edited 2nd Feb '11 8:16:17 PM by Vorpy

I think so, but I wasn't aware Kick the Dog was a villain-only trope. If so, I've seen a good deal of misuse.

Kick the Dog has nothing at all to do with redeemablility. It's just a pointless act of evil.

You can Kick the Dog by literally kicking the dog; on the other hand you can kick the dog by ordering your Legions of Doom to rape any woman they see. It's a very broad trope.