Needs major revision: Cult Classic

...Or as in "Most Triumphant Example is a catalog of exemplary examples of tropes"?

I don't see how this changes anything I've been saying. "Exemplary" isn't exactly something we can objectively pinpoint, and it basically means the same exact thing I've been saying already about a Cult Classic being deemed "something that meets a definitive high standard for cult works." Examples would still depend on subjective merits.

edited 14th Apr '11 7:25:18 AM by SeanMurrayI

No, every dictionary definition I can find says nothing about meeting a "definitive high standard" for anything. They all define it as a generic word for any Cult Film + Cult Book etc. Indeed the reason it's used is precisely because it's the only idiom in the English language that is commonly used for that purpose that covers works other than Cult Film.

edited 14th Apr '11 7:40:13 AM by berr

Look, you just defined Cult Classic as "cult works that are exemplary of that fact".

Exemplary — adj. worthy of imitation, commendable; serving as a desirable model; the best of its kind.

To call something exemplary of being a cult work is to call it "definitive and of a high standard for cult works," and that's still every bit as subjective as I've already said it is.

edited 14th Apr '11 7:46:26 AM by SeanMurrayI

I think we're just talking by each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're making a positive affirmation that the page not describe a (meta-)genre but be a more subjective term describing only famous examples that are exemplary of the genre, given the broadness of the genre.

I'm suggesting that we go by the established meaning and make it clear in the trope description that the term refers to a somewhat broad (meta-)genre like Low Fantasy, {Xenofiction}} or B-Movie and that the word "classic" is not meant to be taken as a literal expression, and then go on to make sure that our own trope definition excludes certain things to take account for the fact that the list of examples are collaborative and not curated.

Part of the problem with the option you state is that it would require all examples be removed, because TV tropes generally has a policy against listing only the most notable or noteworthy examples on a page, whereas I think the current examples list is really a good one provided it's accepted that the trope definition is not based on any claim about the quality of the work.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:04:55 AM by berr

There was a similar consensus recently in another trope, to err on the side of the common English expression, where folks were afraid that the common phrase might be used as a badge of quality and the consensus was "no sense in discarding a perfectly good English phrase" when we can make clear the distinction in the trope definition.

Perhaps we should rewrite the note to editors to (something) like:

Note that the phrase "cult classic" is merely a common English expression used by critics and audiences to refer to these works, and does not necessarily mean they are "classic" in the sense of being especially exemplary or highly regarded examples. Generally speaking, the phrase merely means that they have "classically" been referred to as examples of the trope.

It also doesn't mean any "classic" work that happens to have a fandom. If a work is simply old and highly regarded by fans of classic works in general for the reason of being critically acclaimed, then it doesn't count. Roger Ebert and others have famously published articles complaining that, if the term "cult" + "classic" were construed literally, it would lose all meaning, and defended the (well) classic sense of the term. It actually originated as a euphemism, like classic fixer-upper or Space Opera, for works that were once considered fringe and of questionable merit.

Works should be added on the basis of individual cult reputation. If there is doubt about whether a work belongs here, check critical consensus. If a work's "cult reputation" is one of the first thing referenced by critics, it counts. A cult (as we're using the term) is a specific type of fandom and one which only exists in the absence of widespread popular acclaim. If it merely happens to be the work of a creator who did some other cult classic, it doesn't count.

And perhaps we should remove the "by creator" ordering of the list, since that encourages folks to classify any work by the same creator, not to mention spam the list with the entire -ography of their favorite creator.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:20:57 AM by berr

"Listing only the most notable or noteworthy examples" is not option I ever proposed here. Though I have already suggested in this thread to make this an example-free Fan Speak page.

Generally listing any works that can be said to have a cult following, I believe, borders on People Sitting On Chairs because there are MANY things with cult followings in different parts of the world and there isn't very much significant in their existence (it would be like listing actual examples for Fandom). Meanwhile, making the examples list about works that have "classically been referred to as examples of the trope"... again, that does not sound like an objective concept.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:31:07 AM by SeanMurrayI

What Really? I wouldn't think this would be a problem. I mean things like MS Saga (which is a Gundam game) was one of the worst selling Bandai games ever and the worst Gundam game in japan and America with extremely bad reviews in both. Has very dated game play, very bad voice acting ect but has a small but very devoted fan base inside and outside of the Gundam fanbase.

So much so we have a page on it.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:38:31 AM by Raso

^^But again, you're using a different and much more broad definition of the trope which Roger Ebert and others have criticized as a People Sit On Chairs over-broad misinterpretation of the type of work that the trope typically refers to.

We could start adding in every work where swords and sorcery are involved and call it Sword and Sorcery and then come along and say that the term was trope decayed and no longer has any meaning, but it would just be us saying that and people would continue using the term for its much more specific connotations in Real Life.

As for people in one country viewing something as cult, that is a comparatively minor issue. It's not a simple case of Germans Love David Hasselhoff, it's an inversion of that and one that may not be worth fretting over or doing a hard split. We could do a soft split and have a separate section where the following works are not considered cult in their country of origin.

Keep in mind that the "fans of classic works in general" clause (excluding such works from the list) does double duty to help define the concept because it excludes both Marx Brothers and "Noteworthy Anime" that anyone who is a fan of that specific genre would be expected to know about, which is not really what the trope is about.

So if we put the "cult overseas but not at home" in a soft split, it will make it easy to pare the list down since the only real issue there at present is the fandom attached to British and Japanese works, and that will make those easy to pare down.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:41:50 AM by berr

Raso — at present the page lists this one aspect of the definition as an Evolving Trope: namely whether a work can start out as popular and become cult in a sort of reverse Vindicated By Cult.

I didn't mean to suggest (per your quote) that stuff like that be excluded just because it's a small part of a huge franchise. Only if the work itself is so popular that the rest of the franchise is built around it.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:40:19 AM by berr

Oh nvm then.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:37:27 AM by Raso

I'm not using "different and much more broad definitions" of anything.

I'm simply arguing to define one thing: Cult Following (That is, "a very small but very passionate fanbase for works that are relatively obscure in mainstream society"—100% positively objective, and still not much need to require any page examples)

Whatever you want to say about "cult classics" being works that have "classically been referred to as examples of the trope," that definitely ain't how many people use the term Cult Classic, and any other definitions that have been put out for Cult Classic in this thread are far superior to it, even if it would require a subjective tag.

edited 14th Apr '11 8:43:44 AM by SeanMurrayI

Really, that's the only way I've ever heard the term or seen it defined. Can you find someone using it a different way?

I'm simply saying that if you go by the dictionary definition, and the j'accuse style arguments by respected critics over how the dictionary definition is often misused, thereby turning a perfectly good term into a meaningless expression (really, the articles I've read on this read like TRS) it is 100% used to mean the general class of works with a Cult Following.

If we go by the colloquial "misuse" (as critics call it) to mean any work that is a classic work that has a dedicated following, well, that is a meaningless statement, and such works are actually excluded from the real definition, which started out as a euphemism for fringe before it became seen as a genre of sorts.

We can clarify in the trope description that we're using the dictionary definition and that Tropes Are Not Good,

as was done for several other trope names where people were concerned about trope names that were common expressions, but seemed to have inherent connotations.

We could change the name to Cult Works or the old video clerk staple, File Under Cult but again, why lose a perfectly good english expression?

edited 14th Apr '11 8:54:36 AM by berr

^^ The problem with the latest definition given is that it's Shaped Like Itself (which is especially a problem if the definition was brought forth by someone arguing that the word "classic" actually has no meaning in the phrase Cult Classic) and claiming an example is anything that's referred to by the term. A Cult Classic is not "something that has classically been referred to as an example of a trope."

edited 14th Apr '11 8:59:31 AM by SeanMurrayI

Where would you place Star Trek TOS then? It's probably one of the biggest examples of a Cult Classic considering the letter writing campaign that kept it on the air for an extra season even though it had extremely poor ratings and such.

Later became big via syndication and fan fiction. Which started conventions and such pretty much was a cult that grew till the movie. Even now it's one of those shows that gets crap ratings (Star Trek 2.0 on G4) but people still love it. (TNG and such are a completely different story)

edited 14th Apr '11 9:03:29 AM by Raso

^^No, that's just the easiest method for settling disputes about whether a work belongs on the page.

The phrase "classically referred to as cult" I didn't mean to provide that as a definition, merely to show that the word "classic" is meant as a meaningless intensifier, like "classic fixer-upper" or "a classic case of the heebie-jeebies" and that the word in the phrase that thedefinition actually pertains to is "cult". You follow?

Classic is merely there because the trope authors wisely deduced that it's a common english expression that covers all mediums, and not worth throwing out just because the meaning has been used for something different and meaningless.

edited 14th Apr '11 9:01:07 AM by berr

^Classic isn't being used as a "meaningless intensifier" in either of those examples, just as an intensifier. The word is used; the word has a meaning. It's not just any case of the heebie-jeebies; it's a classic case of the heebie-jeebies. The use of the word "classic" affects the entire context and meaning of the phrase.

Naturally though, as an intensifier, the word "classic" in Cult Classic is obviously intended to intensify something. I know we can agree that not everything with a cult following also doubles as a Cult Classic. So there must be some set of additional criteria for separating just any old thing with a cult following from the cult classics.

And now I ask, what are those criteria?

edited 14th Apr '11 9:10:59 AM by SeanMurrayI

Raso, that is an excellent point. On the one hand, some works seem to have "emeritus" cult status. Everyone's heard of Rocky Horror, for instance even if none of them have actually seen it. But they've heard of it being cult. So mere unpopularity doesn't seem to be key.

I am actually the person who added Star Trek TOS but I'll gladly remove it if it's felt by others that it broadens the trope definition too much.

Works like Star Trek TOS, Doctor Who and Princess Bride seem to fall into a category where... Works like those seem to build a popular following almost entirely on the strength of their cult status (not even reputation, really, it seems like you either have it or you don't, and if it gets too popular, it loses that status, but the Popularity Polynomial usually prevents that from happening unless a work attains sudden massive popularity years later).

If we do a soft split, perhaps we could categorize such works as:

"Works that were Vindicated By Cult reputation or never lost popularity in their home country: these cult works are ones where cult status is often most touted, but contested by some critics due to popularity at home or elsewhere."

We could make a fan-speak page for Vindicated By Cult (e.g. Princess Bride, Star Trek TOS) but keep the examples on this page. We could also make a fan-speak page for Cult Following to simply define the term and still keep & improve this page.

IMO a degree of suckage IE No budget, bad acting, low ratings or sales, bad reviews ect but has a charm to it that it gathers a small but devoted fanbase who love the show. (possibly grows over time to be a Sleeper Hit)

Edit: wow Sleeper Hit has a short time span for examples... Not the trope I was expecting.

edited 14th Apr '11 9:28:53 AM by Raso

^ Any of those things can still be attributed to pretty much anything with a Cult Following, though, and I thought a lot of us were calling "anything with a Cult Following" a "much too broad, People Sit On Chairs definition."

There would also be a bigger issue of a lot of examples being X Just X, when we would have so many factors listed here that we could be putting forth to explain any examples. I'd also note that many listed examples on this page are far from having low ratings or bad reviews; some of them don't even have a single one of these characteristics mentioned here at all.

edited 14th Apr '11 9:34:09 AM by SeanMurrayI

Well, based on that sense of the term, it is Cult Following that is the term that is nebulous, whereas the term Cult Classic refers to something more specific. So the definition needs to be refined so as to exclude "any old cult following", so to speak.

In which case, we should confine the more nebulous definition of the term to a separate page titled Cult Following and leave the more "genre specific" one here,

Thus actually help us to improve the definition I'd suggest that a Cult Classic

• When in doubt, if the critics commonly describe it as cult, or better yet, argue over whether it is still cult, then it counts.

• It has a dedicated crowd of anoraks (in the good sense of the word, I hope ) which exists in the absence of widespread popular acclaim. I know, if this were the only qualifier it'd cover other stuff. But it is a rather crucial bit.

• It avoids the Popularity Polynomial, per the trope description. The crowd seems to replenish its ranks through proselytism and/or Audience Participation.

• The work has, as Raso suggested, contains thematic material of varying self-proclaimed wierdness or offbeat nature that encourages this. This may be cited as deliberate attempts to marginalize said work to appeal to a cult of fans. It is the inverse of Quality by Popular Vote.

• Most usefully, I think, is this: the work is not beloved by a small minority merely because it is old and/or critically acclaimed and hence popular among fans of critically acclaimed works in general (in the same genre). So, if you're a fan of, say, anime, and you're expected to have seen a work as a result, it's probably not cult. This actually helps eliminate a lot of stuff that isn't on the list because we'd instinctively look askance at for that reason. Wizard Of Oz, for example, shouldn't be on the list. OK, I'll make sure it isn't.

edited 14th Apr '11 10:16:04 AM by berr

I made some changes to the bottom of the description (where it's differentiated from other tropes) to try to address some of the issues raised by Sean above. These are just suggested edits and can be reverted if unsatisfactory.

I also removed Wizard Of Oz (!) from the list

edited 14th Apr '11 11:19:23 AM by berr