Hoist By His Own Petard is getting misused.: Hoist By His Own Petard

More to the point, there doesn't seem to be any trope for "X planned a Batman Gambit/Any Other Kind Of Gambit Or Even Just An Ordinary (or Simple) Plan; it backfired, but it didn't kill him/her or even come close." As a result, a lot of Pot Holes and trope-listings go to Hoist by His Own Petard, which is well-known enough in ordinary language as an idiom for "his plan backfired on him." The problem, however, is that the trope description narrows it down to a Death Trope—i.e. "his plan fatally backfired on him."

Now, this leads to all kinds of absurdities, like saying that Ignatius J. Reilly was "repeatedly" Hoist by His Own Petard in the description for A Confederacy Of Dunces. In its ordinary-language use, this is actually just fine—but when you link to the trope, you find a description narrowed down to a villain being killed with his own weapon, and Ignatius is not a villain and does not at any point die in the novel. So you're stuck with a trope title that makes sense for the situation, but the trope it describes on this site is something else entirely. There are a lot of cases where I've seen links to this trope (as well as its alt title, Xanatos Backfire) that obviously intend the more general meaning of "backfired plan" and were clearly made without reference to the actual trope.

So what I think we should do is have one trope that describes "The Plan Backfired," probably under "Hoist by His Own Petard" (reflecting ordinary-language usage), and another subtrope under another title for "The Villain Was Killed By His/Her Own Weapon."

Bumping for resolution's sake.

Or simply re-describe Hoist by His Own Petard to not be a specific death trope, while noting in the description that the phrase originates in the concept of a medieval gunner blowing himself up with his own cannon (or whatever the current favourite theory is)...

^When a trope gathers a bunch of Square Peg Round Trope examples, the one thing we don't do is change the trope's description to make any incorrect examples fit the trope.

edited 18th Feb '11 6:02:17 AM by SeanMurrayI

Actually, we do that a lot, particularly when the name of the trope is a pre-established term that conflicts with our trope definition. The current definition is far too narrow for it's name.

^Actually, reading the explanation of Shakespeare's phrase on the trope page, I'm more confused about why the term is explained as "being undone by one's own trap" when said "petard" is not being described as a "trap" in the slightest. At best, a "petard" is a tool of destruction.

The trope should truly be as focused as "being defeated by one's own tool of destruction," be it a weapon or an attack.

edited 18th Feb '11 7:31:23 AM by SeanMurrayI

This website is for people living in the present and speaking present-day English. In present day English, this phrase means "his plan backfired on him". We're not here to quibble etymologies.

^I'll believe it when I see it. I'm only going by what's on the page, and "the plan backfired on him" is not written as the meaning of the phrase.

Moreover, other websites give similar definitions for what the trope page currently says the phrase means with no references to a backfiring plan.

edited 18th Feb '11 8:40:40 AM by SeanMurrayI

It could be one of these multi-type tropes. Type 1 killed by his own weapon or trap. Type 2 the cunning plan backfired badly now the plotter is getting what he he planned for someone else.

edited 18th Feb '11 8:38:29 AM by CrypticMirror

If we're going to add a Type 2, the least anyone should do is show that using the phrase to mean "a general, nondescript plan backfired on the plotter" is indeed correct use of the phrase.

Uses in the broader sense: here, here, here, here (applied in the broader sense after the definition), here...

edited 18th Feb '11 8:58:28 AM by TripleElation

I should point out that every single one of these links that specifically defines the phrase says that it's used to describe a backfired plot with malicious or harmful intent or action (i.e. through use of tool of destruction).

edited 18th Feb '11 9:20:09 AM by SeanMurrayI

I told you that's how the term is used, you said "bring proof". I gave it to you. Now you're moving the goalposts.

Whatever part does or doesn't "explicitly define the term" is neither here nor there. Even if it is, implying that "malicious plan" always -> "tool of destruction" is verbal gymnastics. Plenty of malicious plans, the ones described in the links in particular, do not involve any tools at all except in a very metaphorical sense.

I concede it has to be a malicious plan. That's about it.

edited 18th Feb '11 9:38:27 AM by TripleElation

I told you that's how the term is used, you said "bring proof". I gave it to you. Now you're moving the goalposts.

I specifically asked for a definition of the term that points to how you say its used from the start. None of the definitions you brought forward define it how you say it's used.

And of the three political pieces you list, one is apparently used in the title of a piece to mean "being a hypocrite," another apparently defines it as "orchestrating ones own self-destruction" (and, apparently, what suicide bombers do, which is even further off the mark).

Only one piece uses the term exactly how you say it is commonly used, and we can't use it because it's not a definition. It's simply an example of its use, and as far as I can tell with what definitions we have gathered so far, it's being used incorrectly in that one instance.

edited 18th Feb '11 9:46:11 AM by SeanMurrayI

The argument is about whether the petard can be something a bit more metaphorical than a literal tool of destruction. I've found links that imply that according to actual use, yes, it can. Now suddenly, conveniently, only definitions matter and everything else doesn't count for these-and-other reasons. In this one it was explicitly defined in the wider sense, but again, that probably doesn't count, too.

Okay. I'm done contributing my bit here. I have nothing more that might possibly convince you except maybe a few dozen more instances of people using this phrase in the wider sense that won't count, either.

edited 18th Feb '11 9:58:55 AM by TripleElation

Now suddenly, conveniently, only definitions matter and everything else doesn't count for these-and-other reasons.

This isn't "sudden." This is what I've been asking for since the issue of other meanings of the phrase came up. And how else are we supposed to define a pre-existing term if not through already documented definitions?

If the term means, "having ones plan backfire" then surely there's an actual definition of the phrase that someone can point to that says exactly that. If there isn't, then what the hell are we doing trying to make it up?

In this one it was explicitly defined in the wider sense, but again, that probably doesn't count, too.

It's defined there as, “victimized by his own scheme to harm someone else.”

That's more or less how this trope is already supposed to be used.

edited 18th Feb '11 10:07:21 AM by SeanMurrayI

The laconic page says death, but I'd see it more as just being harmed. May I suggest a Killed By His Own Petard subtrope?

^That would just be The Same But More Specific.

And completely pointless.

^ If it helps avoid misuse, it's not pointless.

Adjusting the description will do nothing to avoid future misuse if it's the name that is throwing people off, which it looks like it is. Nearly everyone who has misused the trope has never read it, or else they would know better. It's the title that's causing the misuse, therefore it's the title that needs to be adjusted. Killed By His Own Petard is a lot clearer and gets the idea across. No one will look at that title and assume that it isn't a death trope. Thus misuse is avoided. Sounds like a great plan to me.

What you're suggesting is renaming the trope—which is very different from Senshi Sun's suggestion to spin off a separate subtrope.

The first sentence trope description says it can be any non-fatal downfall. It doesn't have to be death. Therefore, changing the title to make it look like a Death Trope is misleading. Based on what the description says, the trope requires a villain to suffer a significant downfall or death at the hands of his own weapon or malicious scheme. As mentioned, there is no trope that covers any "villain suffers misfortune at his own hands" that doesn't fall under those criteria, which is why this is being misused to cover it. As far as the narrative is concerned, they serve the exact same purpose, the only difference is the rating the work will get. We should create a separate catch-all trope for "villain suffers misfortune at his own hands" with Hoist by His Own Petard as a subtrope.

"Hoist by one's own petard" literally means "Blown up by one's own bomb".

And "washing your hands of" something literally means washing your hands, but idiomatically it means something different. Likewise, "hoist by one's own petard" idiomatically means something related to but different from its literal meaning.

Oh, yeah, my point is just that "Killed by one's own petard" doesn't make much sense when you think of it like that, since "Hoist" already means "Killed." May as well drop the idiom completely at that point.

However, saying that "hoist by his own petard" means "getting blown up by one's own bomb" would be a lot like saying "shot himself in the foot" is actually a reference to "one blowing his own foot away with a bullet fired from a gun."

"Hoist by his own petard" is principally a metaphor, first and foremost. It's not intended to be taken at literal face value by any means.

edited 20th Mar '11 2:41:35 PM by SeanMurrayI