XJustX problems: World Of Snark

Nearly every entry on World of Snark is X Just X — i.e., just the name of the work, no description. What should be done?

Seems to have been fixed mostly.

I'd say the problem is that there isn't really a good way to elaborate on this trope. You can either say that everybody is a snarker, or say nothing and let the fact that the work is left on the page speak for itself. Some of the examples do point out the Up To Eleveness or provide additional details, but you can't do that for every single work that applies.

I agree, it's another one of those tropes that are mostly self-explanatory, unless there is something rare and unique to say about the example.

For example House definitely has a World of Snark, but I couldn't meaningfully explain how the trope is used, if my life would depend on it, without just repeating the page description, and stating that "it is used here".

edited 11th Apr '11 8:52:30 AM by EternalSeptember

Then explain that many characters in the work are snarks. Giving no insight or information about a trope's presence other than a work title would still only be X Just X, no matter the page.

edited 11th Apr '11 9:13:00 AM by SeanMurrayI

The fact that many "characters in the work are snarks" is already given by the page description, repeating it would be redundant Word Cruft:

• House has a World of Snark, because most main characters are Deadpan Snarkers.

That woldn't add any extra information. X Just X is a bad thing, if it leaves the reader confused without a proper explanation, but in this case, there is nothing to explain: Have you ever seen a World of Snark? Have you read the page description? Well, House is also like that.

That's it.

Example descriptions are for the specific variations in the trope. If a trope is so categorically defined that most examples can be described with the same paragraph, the trope is mostly self-explanatory, as most visual tropes, title tropes, or stock phrases tend to be.

edited 11th Apr '11 9:22:19 AM by EternalSeptember

Not all snark is the same as all other snark. Therefore, there's room for description.

That would fit under Deadpan Snarker, that is actually a trope about how snark works, but here, the snark itself isn't even the focus of this trope: This is a trope about how authors use a large number of snarkers for cynical comedy. The number is the focus of the trope.

For example, the House entry on Deadpan Snarker explains how the title character is anti-social example, Wilson is forced to reply to him with snark, and how "the new kids" are still inexperienced at it.

But that would all be Square Peg Round Trope explanation on this page, that has nothing to do witht he individual snarker's personality: the only variations on the trope itself would be if the number of snarkers would be played with.

Well, none of the examples give a number so the examples would still be a problem.

edited 11th Apr '11 9:42:02 AM by SeanMurrayI

Because the page description already gives that number, as all or most characters. The examples would only need to point out if something unusual is going on, for example literally every single one of 235 characters is a Deadpan Snarker, or only a few of the main characters are, but they cover most of the screentime.

Just because we have descriptions for tropes on pages doesn't mean that trope examples don't have to specify how they fit a given trope.

Art Shift has a description that outlines many of that trope's qualities and characteristics, but examples still need to include more information than just the name of the work. We'd still need to point out where in a work the change occurs and what that change actually consists of. Likewise, examples of World of Snark still need to explain how a work includes many snark characters and who those characters exactly are.

edited 11th Apr '11 9:58:39 AM by SeanMurrayI

Considering how many ways there are to be snarky, it would make sense to identify the types used in the World of Snark, or conversely, to at least identify the characters that aren't snarky.

Using your example, ES, an entry like this:

• <Name of work>: Every Main Character is a Deadpan Snarker, and most of the secondary ones are as well. The notable exception is secondary character and Butt-Monkey Bob, who is not snarky himself, and is the favorite target of the other characters' snark.

gives much more information about how the trope is used than simply

• <name of work>

edited 11th Apr '11 10:02:31 AM by Madrugada

In fairness, though, it's not a huge improvement, and it's a lot harder to write.

Given that I originally argued that World of Snark is an unusually self-explanatory trope, closer to Character Title, or Stick-Figure Comic, than to Art Shift and others, so bringing it up it doesn't really disprove anything.

I thought about listing exceptions, though I can't think of a main character who isn't an example in my earlier example of House, but probably there are some other entries that could be improved by it.

But, as troacctid said, it's not a huge improvement, definitely not on the level that everything without it should be removed as "meaningless".

In most tropes, like Art Shift, the title itself only tells that "at some point, the art style shifts from some style to some other style, for some reason."

If I would leave a work's title on the trope page, a reader unfamiliar with the work would get to know exactly nothing about it. That's what we are trying to avoid, and it makes sense to remove an X Just X entry.

But with World of Snark, a title already tells that this trope is when "everyone is a Deadpan Snarker". If a work is listed, you know that everyone is a Deadpan Snarker, and even the lack of explanation tells something about how it is used: It is used normally. There is a number of characters, and most of them are Deadpan Snarker trope. If there would be something unusual about their amount, that would be noted.

How they are Deadpan Snarker characters, is the subject of the Deadpan Snarker trope itself: This is a trope about the fact that there are many of them, the descriptions shouldn't divert from that.

edited 11th Apr '11 10:52:36 AM by EternalSeptember

May I make a suggestion?

In the context of House, House himself is the best known for being a snarker. Someone who doesn't watch the show - say, me - would be mildly surprised to learn the others match him such that we're having trouble figuring out how to describe why it's a World of Snark.

The only cases I can see where finding a description should be a problem are cases where the snark is very uniform across every single character. But then, you could bring up how, say, two characters with very opposed personalities (neither of which might ordinarily be thought of as snarky) are equally snarky.

If everyone has a similar character, the problem then isn't finding a description, it's keeping that description free of Take That! ("everyone has the same personality because Author Mc Tropey is a hack").

edited 12th Apr '11 12:23:02 AM by MorganWick