Evident rampant misuse...: Moral Event Horizon

When you see examples saying things like "this character crosses the moral event horizon multiple times" it is clear that whoever added the example (or at least the wording, depending on how the example was edited over time) was Completely Missing The Point of the trope.

I remember I used to edit some of those examples to say "there are multiple candidates for when this character crosses the moral event horizon." Now, I did not do much of this; I probably only did this for a few examples, but in hindsight, by taking that approach in the first place I was making a mistake. After all, that kind of thing is not just a flaw in wording; it is a flaw in understanding of the trope, and the wording is just a symptom of that; said flaw in understanding of the trope, then, reflects poorly on the judgement with which the example was added, and in turn calls into question the extent to which it is even an example in the first place.

How do we go about fixing this, then? Should we scrap all the examples and start over, or have different tropers more familiar with the trope gradually look through the examples? In either case, should we have some sort of restricted editing whereby only users who fill out some specific digital multiple choice quiz or something can edit Moral Event Horizon subpages?

EDIT: On a sidenote, do not assume from "multiple candidates for moral event horizon" wording implies that it is a result of me editing a "multiple moral event horizons" example; in some cases, I added an example myself, and said that there are multiple candidates for MEH because that is the way I interpreted the work I was referring to.

edited 16th Mar '11 7:27:56 PM by neoYTPism

This is a YMMV page, which means the Moral Event Horizon that a character crosses will depend on the perceptions of the audience. A good example is Arthas from Warcraft: some people argue his moment is when he orders the slaughter of an entire village, while others argue that the slaughter was justified due to what was going on in the village and his moment was willingly taking up Frostmourne. Don't kill those examples because they're legitimate. However, any example that has them crossing the line multiple times should be nuked because it misses the point, as you said. In addition, the subpages could use a general cleaning for fluff and natter.

"Thorough preparation must lead to success. Neglect nothing."

Am I the only one struck by the irony of an OP that talks about evident rampant misuse of a trope, and does so by flagrantly misusing a trope? :)

Difference is, I am using it that way on the forums, not in an examples section. Also, that is how Completely Missing The Point is often used in practice.

Are you going to address the subject itself or are you just going to settl for pointing out things you see as hypocritical about the post?

Neo, You've brought this up several times, and each time you get the same explanation: When (or even if) a character crosses the MEH is highly subjective. There may well be multiple candidates for what it is. Because of this, the best we can do is to make it a YMMV page (which it is) and try to keep the phrasing to "Some people believe is [here], others think it's [there] and another group hold that it happens [this third place]." rather than "He crosses it [here], again [there] and a third time [in this other place]."

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

But my point is precisely that this is not just a flaw in wording, but reflects on a flawed understanding of the trope, and this flawed interpretation in turn had a role in them even calling it an example.

I agree that Moral Event Horizon is subjective by its very nature, but the point is that some examples might not have been considered examples had the people who added them had a better understanding of what the trope is in the first place.

How do you know that they weren't? Unless you can clearly show through the example's rationale (if it has one) that it was added due to misunderstanding, assume it wasn't.

"Thorough preparation must lead to success. Neglect nothing."

If a user's edit says that a character crossed the Moral Event Horizon multiple times, that suggests that said user's interpretation of the trope is off, which, again, reflects poorly on the judgement with which the edit was made. If they thought it was a Moral Event Horizon before they even knew what a Moral Event Horizon was, it is still possible that it might be example, but that should be left to those more familiar with the trope (and with the potential example) to decide.

On a sidenote, I've since mentioned the article quiz idea in Wiki Talk.

Which I agreed was clear misuse. However, each individual point that they list could very well be what someone else thinks is the Moral Event Horizon. In addition, it's entirely possible that a character could have committed a number of heinous actions, each of which could individually mark the Moral Event Horizon for that character. It's not simply "this is the most heinous thing they've ever done". Therefore, it's not a good idea to simply remove any examples, just reword them so they fit the definition of the trope better.

"Thorough preparation must lead to success. Neglect nothing."

"However, each individual point that they list could very well be what someone else thinks is the Moral Event Horizon." - MC 42

Only to those familiar with the actions in their original contexts in their respective works, at least. Look at the Disney section of Complete Monster:

*

This description does not really capture the horror of his actions. It just seems much more terrifying when you watch the actual scene in which he does this than it does from the description. I could imagine a similar thing applies to Moral Event Horizon; something may be more horrible than the description makes it sound. Alternatively, it could be the other way around. (Hey, that rhymes!)

So at the very least, then, replacing "multiple moral event horizons" with "multiple candidates for moral event horizon" should only be done by those familiar with the contexts of said "candidates for moral event horizon."

Bumping because the second cleanup thread of Complete Monster is still going, and that trope and Moral Event Horizon are closely connected.

I added an edit, with mind to nullify some of the misunderstanding by standing outside the work for a second. This is TV Tropes, after all. Moral Event Horizon should refer to a discrete event in a discrete work; it cannot stand in for largely subjective views of whether a character is irredeemably evil, as both evil and redemption are multifacted topics with different meanings to different people. Rather, this is a trope that demonstrates, "Yup, this guy is evil; their actions are unjustified; do not pass Go and collect Death Equals Redemption." Yet, especially in multi-author canon, this trope does appear, even when later authors subvert or negate it. That's a discontinuity issue.

Just to add... note that this makes me Trope Jesus or anything, but I did name this trope, during the discussion in which Rape the Dog and Complete Monster were cleaned up. I did some of the editing for the new article, and just to get my perspective, I thought it was important enough that the term be general enough to be useful, yet carefully distinguish the resolute nature of the evil and lack of moral awareness involved. As with all tropes, the trick is for it to refer to some things, but not all things, and usefully not resemble other things.

I agree in principle that you should not have a Moral Event Horizon more than once. However, I can think of two exceptions. First, within the work, there may be clearly levels of evil, possibly more than one that represents a step that precludes redemption. Lucifer's fall from heaven was sort of a one stop deal, but some characters might go from evil and thuggish to Irredeemably Evil, then evolve into a threat to the universe, then dissolve into complete nihilism in which their own evil is a pointless end. I can actually see the post-Silver Age Joker in this light, going from cartoon madman murder to the guy who paralyzed Babs Gordon. Even before he did that, most people would have considered him low on the Human meter, and beyond redemption, but there's an extra level of oomph provided by desecrating a hero. At least he tended to treat Batman as a worthy foe up until that point. Barbara Gordon? Straight to the fridge.

The second case is just wandering Dis Continuity. You really can't help it if someone later writer wants to turn your Klingon genocidalist into a Star Fleet liason or something and have him realize We Are Not So different. Loose canon allows for multiple ME Hs all the time. It sucks, but it's not a logical impossibility.

I can come up with one more instance - when there is genuine disagreement as to when the horizon is crossed.

The bit on Kefka Palazzo from Final Fantasy VI is a good example - even dedicated fans of the game don't agree quite when Kefka crossed the horizon. Some say it was right from his first appearance, when he stuck a crown that robbed one of the main characters of her will and forced her to kill some of his own soldiers. Others say that the player can effectively do that in-game to enemies (via confusion spells, Relm's Control ability, and the like), so it isn't that out there. Others go for different actions he does through the game. Basically, all of the points for Kefka have been argued as the official crossing of the horizon by at least some people. It's a bit subjective, however, to say which one is the "official" one.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Again, I am not denying that ambiguity as to WHEN the horizon is crossed is possible. I am just saying that an entry along the lines of "this character crosses the horizon multiple times" evidently misinterpreted the trope, calling into question whether or not the "example" is even an example in the first place.

Bump.

I tend to think this trope is pretty mis-used (it's even in the Degrassi section for Christ sake) and I'm currently in a dispute about it in the Animorphs section. I know it's YMMV and it's subjective but it seems like it doesn't really fit in a lot of cases.

This. It is technically subjective, but some examples seem to suggest that it is much more likely than not that the users adding them misinterpreted the trope.

I've seen Moral Event Horizon used as different things:
1) Moment where we realize that the character is evil and not something else.
2) The moment where we realize that the character is evil and irredeemably so.
3) The moment where a character does something that tilts them over from likeable evil to unlikeable evil. E.g. [1].

edited 29th Jul '11 9:10:36 AM by MangaManiac

Okay, I've been thinking about this trope:

1. "Moment when you realize character is evil": This works, but only as a criteria, not as a definition. For example, a woman who intentionally seduces her best friend's husband for not other reason than to ruin their marriage is evil, but does that count as a MEH? In terms of fiction, it's Evil Is Petty, and far more vicious than mere dog-kicking, but I'm not sure it works beyond being an "Exhibit A".

2. "Moment when character is irredeemable": I'd qualify this by adding "without permanent equitable penance". In other words, if the Evil Overlord ordered his mooks to Rape, Pillage, and Burn an entire village, that's an act you can't "take back". However, after getting struck by the Beam of Enlightenment, he comes to realize how wrong they've always been after the fact and tries to undergo a Heel–Face Turn. However, that's the sort of thing that, even if you say you're sorry for, the only way to prove it is to pretty much do good until you "make up" for it (possibly for the rest of your life).

3. "Moment when evil goes from likeable to unlikeable": Completely subjective. Even if the villain just stomped a baby with hiking boots, it may count as Dead Baby Comedy to certain parties.

^Regarding 2, I've always thought the MEH was the moment where the character could do some sort of equitable penance and would still be seen as evil and deserving of death.

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

That's only because "equitable" is subjective. If the accuser saw it as "equitable", there would be no need for further punishment/comeuppance.

Just wondering, when did the MEH become subjective? People arguing that (insert hero here) was secretly an evil prick? I mean, most media try to make it clear when a villain's crossed a line into total evil.

Was Jack Mackerel. | i rite gud

The Draco in Leather Pants effect makes it subjective.

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

I think moments where the creator tried to paint the event in a terrible light shouldn't be subjective, however. We really need to put feet down on people with extreme alternate character interpretations.

Was Jack Mackerel. | i rite gud

Isn't what you're referring to more along the lines of Ron the Death Eater?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart