Nope because those have nothing to do with the actual trope. They are related to the motivations and attitudes of the characters in the scene, they don't change anything about the actual trope use.
nonarySpade
By "intentional" I mean when it is Played for Laughs. It has nothing to do with the character's intentions, it has to do with the writer's intentions.
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
What you call the "intentional" version is the trope. Your "unintentional" version is closer to What An Idiot.
nonarySpade
But it's not close enough.
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
Then what is it exactly?
nonarySpade
The unintentional missing the point or What An Idiot?
If it is What An Idiot, that's when someone in fiction does something incredibly dumb, sometimes even out of character.
The unintentionally missing the point is when the point-missing is unintentional (i.e. not played for laughs) on the writer's or speaker's part. For example- One person told Mark Z. Danielewski that they believed House Of Leaves was actually a romance story. Normally, this would be considered Completely Missing The Point, but that was renamed to Comically Missing the Point, suggesting it is only when examples are intentional.
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
Here's the thing. Comically Missing the Point is always intended by the author, but not intended by the character (excepting when the author is Playing with a Trope—if the character is playing stupid or intentionally trying to annoy someone else, for example).
If the author intended for the character to do/say something smart, and the reader thinks the character still did/said something dumb, that's less a trope and more "Look at me, I'm smarter than the author!" Policy is against that sort of page, which is why the various pages titled "You Fail X Forever" were all retitled to "Artistic License - X".
As for your Danielewski example, the person who identified House Of Leaves as a romance was (presumably) not trying to say something completely off-base, which is perfectly consistent how Comically Missing the Point works. The only sticking point is what the author intended in this particular scene, which is hard to determine because we're still debating whether or not Real Life has an author. That's the same reason why trope examples from real life aren't considered proper examples, and they're only tolerated on this site to the extent that they don't cause problems (Trope Decay, edit warring, natter, etc).
edited 15th Jun '11 12:06:52 AM by MetaFour
nonarySpade
Which is why I am proposing a split!
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
What you want to do then is to propose your new trope in YKTTW.
Right, to be frank, this is all bollocks. You're not even talking about a trope, you're talking about a page which is going to be "Make a laughing stock of people". It's not a "split", it's not really anything we couldn't get by taking many other trope titles and doing the same thing because it always boils down to the same thing: people on the internet going "Duuuuuuuuuh".
nonarySpade
Well, people have used Completely Missing The Point for unintentional examples before.
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
If you mean "unintentional on the part of the author", then some people are wrong.
nonarySpade
That's why I'm proposing the split!
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
Again, take it to YKTTW for feedback.
Into one where the point-missing is intentional, and one where the point-missing is unintentional. What do you think?
edited 14th Jun '11 2:13:33 PM by Kexruct
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay