Subjective?: Too Dumb To Live

Okay, hear me out a bit. The reason I'm bringing up this topic is because I squashed an edit to The Empire Strikes Back that read as follows:

There's a part of this trope that is legitimate: a character takes an action that, under any rational definition of common sense, would get him killed. However, it slides so very easily into complaining about any action that seems like it might have been stupid, especially in hindsight.

Am I overreacting here, or is this a legitimate problem?

It's supposed to be about potentially-lethal stupidity. I suppose it's subjective on some level, but the trope decay (people using this for non-life-threatening What An Idiot moments) is a bit of a source of error.

And note that What An Idiot is subjective. Where's the dividing line?

I can't think of any specific examples right now but I've definitely seen this potholed in the exact same way as Wall Banger and What An Idiot.

What An Idiot is just a character being dumb. Too Dumb to Live is an actual trope that needs fixing so that its only about characters dieing or getting hurt badly.

edited 16th Mar '11 10:54:10 AM by nuclearneo

I always figured Too Dumb to Live was when someone actually died (or was severely injured) as a direct result of their (stupid) actions, the reasoning being that if they lived after all, it wasn't quite stupid enough. I did not believe this trope to mean "This character's stupid to the extent that it should get them killed".

I guess, on rereading the page, that that's not the case, but it may be a decent way to ensure it remains an objective trope. Particularly since one of its redirects is "___ Victim" (though one could pick a better word than "Asshat").

edited 16th Mar '11 11:28:09 AM by Loyal2NES

I kinda noticed the trope decay, too. I think the dividing line is that the character does something that will get them killed or injured, as opposed to a character just doing something stupid, that only should or could lead to there death. So all examples that include angering another person should be What An Idiot, mostly because not every character has the same knowledge that the viewers have.

edited 16th Mar '11 11:40:19 AM by eX

I also think it has to be at least tacitly acknowledged in-story. For example, in Airplane 2: The Sequel, there's a scene where the lunar shuttle is crash-landing, and a passenger goes into the bathroom... to shave. The ensuing injuries are Played for Laughs. That's Too Dumb to Live.

What An Idiot is an audience reaction. Too Dumb to Live is someone doing something stupid and suffering the consequences, preferably acknowledged as such by the story.

edited 16th Mar '11 11:44:09 AM by Fighteer

Bumpage.

I agree with that dividing line. Too Dumb to Live should only have examples when they are acknowledged in-universe. Audience Reactions to the same effect can be covered by What An Idiot. Although, does Too Dumb to Live include examples where a character is mentioned to be trying something insanely risky yet pulls it off anyway, like Han Solo in the asteroid field?

Nope, I think that falls under Million to One Chance or Never Tell Me the Odds!. If the story proves the person right, they were not Too Dumb to Live, pretty much by definition.

edited 22nd Mar '11 7:31:30 AM by Fighteer

It kinda does although I think some with Suicidal Tenancies and such would be in a trope by itself where he is Too Dumb to Live but Too Lucky To Die.

Someone who's Driven to Suicide is trying to get killed, so does not apply. Too Lucky To Die might be a separate trope worthy of YKTTW, if we don't already have it under a different title.

It only counts for this trope if the person is not inclined toward intentional self-destruction, merely doing it out of ignorance or stupidity.

edited 22nd Mar '11 7:38:54 AM by Fighteer

I guess Suicidal was too strong of a word. Too Lucky To Die is what I was really aiming at and thats where the "Misuse" is coming from and I think it should have a place.

edited 22nd Mar '11 7:53:00 AM by Raso

Here's my personal opinion as to what is and is not this trope. Let's see what sticks.

• A character taking an action through ignorance or stupidity whose likely consequences are death or serious injury.
• Tacitly acknowledged as such within the work, either by (a) the character actually suffering said consequences; (b) other characters remarking on the stupidity of the action.

Too Dumb to Live is not:

• An action that a reasonable person would not expect to be fatal or inflict serious harm.
• What An Idiot — an action judged stupid solely by the audience, especially in hindsight.
• Driven to Suicide, Death Seeker — a character deliberately trying to die.
• A character who knows or suspects the consequences and performs the action anyway in service of an acknowledged goal. This can fall under Never Tell Me the Odds!, Indy Ploy, Refuge in Audacity or a variety of other tropes. It also covers obvious things like "fights in a battle", or someone who takes the only visible route out of a bad situation.
• A character who suffers death or injury as a result of things they could not reasonably be expected to know or prepare for.
• A character who is merely accident-prone, unless others in the story trust said character with vital tasks in full knowledge of that fact, in which case they might qualify for the trope.

edited 22nd Mar '11 9:45:40 AM by Fighteer

I agree with Fighteer's assessment.

Sounds like a perfect distinction.

It's excellent.

I love the write-up. I think we should add something in that a Too Dumb to Live is a basic character trait, and not just that a character at some point did something really dumb and paid for it. If it isn't, then we may have overbreadth problems whenever a normally intelligent character does something horrifically stupid while holding the Idiot Ball and everyone rushes to add him in.

Is it considered 'Too Dumb to Live' if the scene has the following?

A. The character does not die or suffer serious injury.

B. They reasonably should suffer injury.

C. They reasonably should know that they will probably suffer an injury.

D. And lastly they do not have a good reason to do this.

I ask because I want to put in the example of Sokka from the movie The Last Airbender. Near the beginning he sees something under the ice (that he is currently standing on) and so decides to smash the ice to see what it is. Even though he has supposedly spent his entire life on the ice.

I suppose it should be clear from the context of the work that it's a dumb thing to do. For example, does he fall in, nearly drown, or otherwise almost die? If the story doesn't enforce any consequence for the action, then it's not Too Dumb to Live; at best it's What An Idiot, which is subjective.

Necrobump.

Can we just post fighteer's explanation on post 15 as the new description? That would clear up a lot.

Fighteer's definition is a good one. I would also exclude a temporary possession of the Idiot Ball.

Hoo boy. No objections so I guess we can go ahead and do this. By the way, I wouldn't exclude the Idiot Ball — in many cases this is handed to a character precisely so they can be Too Dumb to Live for an episode.

I've seen this trope used as a pothole for "very, very stupid" (with nothing really lethal involved) too many times to count.