Rename (New Crowner 2.6): The Wonka

Did we ever figure this out?

I still stand by what I said in the second post, but I don't know if people are still finding the definitions unclear. For the record, here's the distinction.

So, when a bel starts his own business, he becomes the wonka?

Pretty much. There is a difference in how they're treated by the SL because they're in charge. They tend to have a lot fewer restrictions on them for good or ill.

I take it that this thread is still open because nobody has cleaned up the pages in question? I was always under the impression that shima's breakdown in the second post was the distinction.

??? They means Bunny-Ears Lawyer? Who is SL? Who has fewer restrictions? ???

SL = storyline. Sorry. The Wonka has fewer restrictions because they're in charge of the company and don't have a boss keeping a leash on them.

I'm trying to use Denny Crane, Alan Shore, Dr. House, and the Good Guys as examples to parse the distinctions. Can you help?

Of those, the only one I know is House and He's a Bunny-Ears Lawyer. He still has a boss that he reports to. Cutty is ultimately in charge of him.

Denny Crane is more of The Wonka, but there are some aspects of Bunny-Ears Lawyer in his position. He's a founding- and Senior- partner in the law firm. That makes him one of the bosses, in that he can't simply be fired, but he still could be thrown out/bought out of the partnership if the other senior partners decided that they'd simply had enough of him. But they can't do it easily, so he's effectively more The Wonka than A Bunny-Ears Lawyer.

Alan Shore is a straight-up Bunny-Ears Lawyer. He's an employee, and could be fired at any time. In fact, he knows that he'll never make partner.

Law firms are not a clean fit, because of the inherent structure. The Partners are all owners and none of them are completely immune to being replaced the way the sole owner of other types of businesses are. The non-partners are all employees and are vulnerable to being fired.

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:36:19 AM by Madrugada

The length of the leash Cuddy has varies, though. It doesn't help without those other comparisons.

• Bunny-Ears Lawyer = has an odd trait, but highly effective regardless.
• Crazy Awesome = has an odd trait, making them highly effective.
• The Wonka = Bunny-Ears Lawyer, plus in charge?

That distinction just doesn't sit well with me. After all, even a company owner like Willy Wonka might have some stockholders he reports to. Is the freedom the distinction you're going for? Not authority, but freedom?

so my understanding of those two matches up, but I still need the buddy cops to trianglulate my understanding.

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:43:59 AM by crazysamaritan

Id say that something like "Vulnerability to dismissal" is the key difference. A Bunny-Ears Lawyer can be dismissed from his job without much trouble, but isn't because he's just that good. The Wonka isn't vulnerable to losing his position, either because there is truly no-one who can do so, or because it could be done but only with great effort by a number of people.

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:39:44 AM by Madrugada

Example: Ms. Frizzle, she is only a teacher and puts students into incredibly dangerous situations. If there was a principal, she'd be fired. Wonka or bunny?

Neither, really, but more Bunny-Ears Lawyer than The Wonka. These two tropes get really messy when you try to apply them in situations where the workplace relationships aren't fundamental to the story, like The Magic School Bus. I'd say trying to apply either to Ms Frizzle would be shoehorning.

Ewww.... We may have to bring in another trope to this discussion; Inexplicably Awesome

That trope has nothing at all to do with the discussion. I realise it says compare, but I can't see how they're anything other than vaguely related.

Ms. Frizzle is more of a Magic Librarian thing. (Except a teacher instead of a librarian.)

edited 2nd Nov '11 11:11:14 AM by troacctid

Several of The Wonka examples are repeated there, as well. Whether you think they're related or not, their use is related.

Just because two tropes overlap does not mean that we need to talk about them at the same time. Most characters are examples of multiple tropes. We don't need to talk about every possible intersection. That trope has nothing to do with this one other than some shared examples.

This is why I hate trope a + trope b = new trope.

crazy awesome and bunny ears lawyer are defined by how they relate to one another. You're defining the wonka based on how it relates to bunny ears lawyer, when it says it is not the bunny ears. It starts off the description by saying it is part of crazy awesome, instead. Then there is Inexplicitly Awesome, which is also based on crazy awesome, and both wonka and inexplicably say that they should be compared.

I think part of my problem is that bunny ears isn't defined as an employment trope. There's the implication that a bunny ears private investigator would still work. If the definition of bunny ears was explicit that it is a workplace trope, that may improve matters. Then the boss version could be bunny-ears boss.

There are rare exceptions to a law firm being headed by The Wonka, but those are the firms where there is only one senior partner (not common, but I've dealt with them). Of course, a lawyer in private practice is certainly eligible for it. But for a senior partner amongst several partners in any sort of business (law firms are merely one of the more likely places to find such a partnership) could only really count as The Wonka if all of the partners would similarly qualify, I think.

For a business with stockholders, The Wonka could still qualify if things have been set up such that they couldn't be fired even if every other stockholder banded against them (owning a majority of the voting stock would work). And a privately owned business (like the candy factory of the Trope Namer) would obviously automatically get that protection.

Seems to me that, due to the boundary for being truly immune from being fired, this trope should be fairly uncommon.

Question, since it might be pertinent - would it count if the person in question could be fired in theory, but they have blackmail material to ensure that it doesn't? Or is that just a Bunny-Ears Lawyer with Ultimate Job Security?

That's a Bunny-Ears Lawyer with Ultimate Job Security.

I think a pertinent difference between BEL and The Wonka beyond being the boss is that the Wonka's weirdness is not limited to himself. His surroundings, underlings, and anything remotely connected to him carries some of that weirdness with them. Which fits more closely the Trope Namer (and Trope Codifier i'd assume). While Willy Wonka is a peculiar individual, what stands out is that everything else involved with him is completely off the wall. He hires orange midgets. He has weird magical candy. His factory seems to run on magic. Etc...

While a normal BEL (say, Dr. House or whoever) tends to be sole output of his weirdness (House' hospital is not all that surreal).

It's the feeling I get from looking at the examples anyway.

Now THAT seems an adequate reason to keep the trope. Up until reading this suggestion, I was thinking about suggesting a merge.

edited 2nd Nov '11 1:11:15 PM by NoirGrimoir

Some outside reason that they can't be fired wouldn't be Bunny-Ears Lawyer. The defining characteristic of a Bunny-Ears Lawyer is that they're so damn good at what they do that only an idiot would fire them.