TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [427]  1 ...  3  4  5  6  7
8
 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18

Common Eye Colors and Technicolor Eyes (New Crowner 11.6): Common Eye Colors get usage counts

Guys, guys. Looks like no one heard what crazysamaritan said!

We have a trope called Distinctive Appearances. It seems to be about "creators use disntinctive appearance traits to make non-background chracters visually stand out".

I suggest the Distinctive Appearances page should include a helpful list of commonly used dist.app.'s, including Greeneyed Redhead, Purple Eyes, etc. etc.
 
Batman
[up] There, there!
There are no heroes left in Man.
 178 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 5:51:49 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
See, there's a supetrope. Supertropes have subtropes for specific ways of doing things. That's proof that GERH and purple eyes can stand on their own because they're large enough to be their own subtropes of Distinctive Appearances.

That trope is what we mean when we say special. They are subtropes of a larger supertrope. Supertropes are better organized by splitting them into subtropes that allow the individual connotations of the subtropes to be discussed on their own.

edited 14th Jan '12 5:53:09 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Batman
[up] So you're admitting it's a list with no meaning of its own, because so far we haven't found any connotation of its own that makes it worthy to have a page.

Then we need Russians Called Boris and Arabians Called Muhammed ASAP.

edited 14th Jan '12 5:56:36 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.
 180 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 5:57:39 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
No, it has a meaning. It's a stock Distinctive Appearance that is used to denote a character as special and make them stand out. That is a meaning. It's not a deep meaning, but it's a meaning. The reasoning being that it's so rare in real life that seeing it in fiction means that this person is something worth paying attention to.

edited 14th Jan '12 5:58:16 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Okay, I think labeling it as a subtrope of Distinctive Appearance would be a step forward. But do we agree that all hypothetical Distinctive Appearance subtropes serve identical functions?

[up][up] & [up] It's not a subtrope, it's just one of the ways to enact this trope.

A subtrope is when one of the common ways to enact a trope also gets some other, new meaning on its own — so it can be a trope (or even a supertrope!) of its own.

E.g., Russian Called Boris is not a "subtrope" of Stock Foreign Name. It's just a common way of giving your Russian character a stock name that is stereotypically associated with Russian-ness.

So, the trope is "creators often give foreigners stock names that are stereotypically associated with their nationality". Naming a Russian "Boris" is just one common way to enact this trope, not a distinctive subtrope that warrants its own page.

Likewise, here the trope is "creators often give non-background characters distinctive appearance traits, so that they stand out in comparison to background chars". Giving a notable character Purple Eyes is just one common way to enact this trope, not a distinctive subtrope that warrants its own page.

Now, if Russians called Boris all had some specific personality trait or role, that was correlated with them being called Boris and not, e.g. Ivan — then it would be a subtrope. E.g., if all Borises were KGB agents; if naming a Russian character Boris was a symbol, commonly used by creators, to signify that this character is a KGB agent — then it would be a subtrope. We could call it Boris The KGB Agent, for example.
UPD: If we call any common way to use a trope "a subtrope", then let's create a "subtrope" to Greeneyed Redhead called Greeneyed Redhead In Green (which is quite a common DistinctiveAppearance, I assure you). And then Greeneyed Redhead In Green With Long Hair, since many of those have long, flowing hair (e.g., Jean Grey, MJ Watson, etc.). Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:09:51 AM by Zulfiqar

 
Batman
And it needs a page for only that? Isn't much simpler to do this?

"Common Distinctive Appearances"

You see that Covered with Scars needs more explanation than just "it's rare", so it gets a page of its own.

Apart from "it's rare", what more do we need to explain? It has no other meaning that makes it worthy of a page that would only be a list of characters that are supposed to stand out, something every non background character does.
EDIT: Well, Ninja'd. As said by Zulqifar subtropes don't work that way. The Same but More Specific means splitting almost any trope.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:11:33 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.
 184 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:11:24 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up][up] I'm sorry, but a subtrope is defined as one of the ways to enact a supertrope. You're basically saying it's a subtrope there.

The reasons Russians Are Called Boris isn't a trope is because it's not actually a pattern in fiction. Boris as a name is used for anyone from Western Europe through the entire former USSR as well as a stock bad guy name even if they aren't Russian. It's also not the only Russian name used by a long shot. It's lacking the pattern bit of what makes a trope.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:13:49 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Batman
[up] The Same but More Specific, that's all Purple Eyes and Green-Eyed Redhead have to be distinguished from Distinctive Appearances.

Splitting every trope to do that makes poor trope pages.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:13:17 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.
 186 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:14:52 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Distinctive Appearances has all the examples of patterns in appearances as their own tropes. The ones actually on the page are actually unique appearances. Ones not shared by other characters in media. Merging any of the tropes we're talking about into the page would cause Trope Decay.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:16:08 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Batman
[up] Again, those pages need more explanation than "they're just different". Purple Eyes and Green-Eyed Redhead only need "it's rare" to cover why they are distinctive.

You're comparing Color-Coded for Your Convenience, that has tons of subtropes and each has a meaning of its own too, with something for which we only need to point out that it's rare.

Do you see where is the problem, or do you need me to explain it again?
There are no heroes left in Man.
I'm sorry, but a subtrope is defined as one of the ways to enact a supertrope. You're basically saying it's a subtrope there.
Then why shouldn't we create Russian Called Boris, Russian Called Ivan, Russian Called Natasha? Why shouldn't we create Greeneyed Redhead In Green, Greeneyed Redhead With Long Hair and Greeneyed Redhead With Long Hair In Green?

The reasons Russians Are Called Boris isn't a trope is because it's not actually a pattern in fiction. Boris as a name is used for anyone from Western Europe through the entire former USSR as well as a stock bad guy name even if they aren't Russian.
Innocent Blue Eyes is a trope, despite there being some blueeyed characters who aren't innocent. Russians Called Boris is a "trope", despite there being some Borises who are not Russian (note that in most Western fiction, "from the former USSR" = "Russian").

It's also not the only Russian name used by a long shot.
Purple eyes is not the only Distinctive Appearance trait used by a looong looooong shot.

Distinctive Appearances has all the examples of patterns in appearances as their own tropes.
Only appearance traits that have their own symbolism, besides what's already covered by Distinctive Appearances trope, are their own tropes. UPD: Otherwise, as Dr. McNinja notes, it's The Same but More Specific. "Distinctive Appearances but only by using purple eyes". Please read the The Same but More Specific trope, before replying, OK?

edited 14th Jan '12 6:28:14 AM by Zulfiqar

 
 189 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:26:31 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
You're ignoring the fact that as written it doesn't actually fit under Distinctive Appearances current definition. So it can't be part of that trope. But it is troping the same direction. It's troping otherness. The fact that you've only taken it's rare away from our much longer explanations is proof only that you haven't been listening.

The reason those other things aren't tropes is because they aren't patterns in fiction. You need actual patterns to be a trope.

I think at this point no argument is going to convince you and that continuing to argue with you is not going to make any progress. Your ideas have been struck down. I am going to stop arguing with you and get to work actually polishing up the trope definitions.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:27:23 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Batman
[up] Otherness. That explains everything, right? The same way "special" does. That's the only thing you bring, and no matter how hard we ask you for a more specific definition that can actually make us see what fits under "otherness" or "specialness" and what doesn't you instead prefer to blame us.

You've decided that you won the discusion and that's all that matters to you. Way to go.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:31:10 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.
 191 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:32:21 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
These are common themes in fiction and ones which if you're actually doing critique of fiction are important. I realise that you don't care for them, but they are accepted and distinctive meanings in academic circles.

I don't care to keep going in circles. That's not the same thing.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:32:45 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
And forgive me for going a little off-topic, but please don't use "I'm never going to convince you" as a personal attack or a point for your side. If you can't convince someone, it may mean they're stubborn or blind to reason, but it may also mean that they've successfully refuted all your arguments, or that they're simply right.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:33:33 AM by Routerie

You're ignoring the fact that as written it doesn't actually fit under Distinctive Appearances current definition. So it can't be part of that trope.
Why doesn't it fit there? Please explain. I think it fits just fine (for the reasons I stated earlier).

The fact that you've only taken it's rare away from our much longer explanations is proof only that you haven't been listening.
I'm arguing with "it's meant to show that the character is notable", not with "it's rare". Please don't misrepresent my point.

The reason those other things aren't tropes is because they aren't patterns in fiction. You need actual patterns to be a trope.
That's not a refutation of my points.

Why is Russian Called Ivan "not a pattern" and Purple Eyes As A Common Type Of Distinctive Appearances "a pattern"? Why is Greeneyed Redhead In Green As A Common Type Of Distinctive Appearances "not a pattern" and Greeneyed Redhead As A Common Type Of Distinctive Appearances "a pattern"? Please explain the difference.

I think at this point no argument is going to convince you and that continuing to argue with you is not going to make any progress. Your ideas have been struck down. I am going to stop arguing with you and get to work actually polishing up the trope definitions.
My points haven't been refuted with logical arguments, I'm afraid. I'm sorry, but shying away from providing arguments under the clause of "my opponent is an inconvincible strawman" isn't a valid type of refutation.
These are common themes in fiction and ones which if you're actually doing critique of fiction are important. I realise that you don't care for them, but they are accepted and distinctive meanings in academic circles.
Yes! smile Cite those meanings, please! If they're used "in academic circles", then you surely even have some quotes, don't you?

edited 14th Jan '12 6:38:07 AM by Zulfiqar

 
 194 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:37:40 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
I didn't mean it like that. I meant that we have in irreconcilable difference of opinion and neither of us are convinced by each other's arguments. As such we keep going in circles. Continuing to go over the same ground is not going to yield any new discussion.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Batman
"These are common terms in fiction". Well, I live in Real Life, not in fiction, so that's not an argument that favors you.

"You don't care about them". Then why am I asking the meaning? Your logic makes no sense at all.

"They have meanings in academic circles". I don't belong to an academic circle, and I think 99% of the troper base are the same, so please bring us the dumbed down version to see if it's actually valid for a trope or not.

"It's going in circles". Of course it is, if you can't give an explanation about what you mean and you keep adamant on not giving us true standards for "special" and "otherness".

edited 14th Jan '12 6:41:19 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.
[up][up]I'm ready to be convinced! (After all, Dr Mc Ninja managed to convince me about GERH, didn't he?) Convince me by refuting my points with logical arguments! smile

edited 14th Jan '12 6:40:35 AM by Zulfiqar

 
 197 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:47:06 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up][up] You may live in real life, but we are discussing fiction. Real life has nothing to do with this. The concept of other in fiction is a long standing one. A character who is other is one who is introduced into the story and is different from the majority of the cast in some way.

They may be like Gaara in Naruto and be the host of a demonic entity when this is a very rare trait in the setting. They may be like Starfire and be the only alien on a team of humans. In Mary Jane's case it's simply that she's not just the same bland personality that Peter is exposed to every day.

The important thing is that there is something that sets them apart from the majority of the cast and as a result they stand out from them
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
[up]That's already been covered by Green Eyes. "Green eyes are rare and thus they denote a strange, weird, mysterious, sometimes even magical character".

P.S.: Don't call Gwen Stacy a "bland personality".

P.P.S.: I think Green Eyes needs a more descriptive name, but that's a different story.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:53:22 AM by Zulfiqar

 
 199 shimaspawn, Sat, 14th Jan '12 6:51:53 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
None of that is the same as the concept of otherness. The concept of standing out because you don't fit into the background. Those meanings of green eyes are for supernatural things. Not every example of Other is supernatural. I believe Green Eyes is being renamed Magical Green Eyes or something to that effect.

Gwen Stacy was originally written out of the comics because readers at the time found her a bland personality especially compared to MJ's passion and spunk. She had more impact on the plot by her death than she did alive. As a bland personality was the reason she was killed, I don't see how calling her that is a bad thing.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:55:38 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Please provide more examples of "otherness" so that we could understand how it's different from Green Eyes.

Gwen: That was some readers' opinion. Hair and eye color were given to Gwen and MJ by their creators, not the readers. The creators didn't intend for Gwen to be an (arguably) bland personality, and MJ to be not.

edited 14th Jan '12 6:57:04 AM by Zulfiqar

 

Alternative Titles: Eyes Of Gold
10th Nov '12 2:18:40 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.
At issue:
Eyes Of Gold was voted to be renamed 12 to 0.
Total posts: 427
 1 ...  3  4  5  6  7
8
 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy