The sarcasm! It burns! : Beast And Beauty

"I think Traditionally is the word we're looking for here. I don't like Rare Female Example as a link though because gender flipping isn't the only possibility." - shima

This. Let's not be forgetting same-sex couples now.

started the clean up. Hope no one minds.

This does bring up a point, though: this trope can have Unfortunate Implications. No one, except possibly for neo YT Pism, is saying it doesn't. While I can understand that those passages had to go, I feel we should acknowledge this somewhere - after all, I've always seen TV Tropes at least partially as a "writer's guide to tropes", and while this trope isn't inherently bad and sexist the way the passages in question made it out to be, it does have the possibility to be mishandled in that way. I'd like it if we could try and steer people away from that.

I have more of a problem with the snarkiness of the first quote than the Unfortunate Implications-lampshading of the second, actually. You'd have to purge such things from all over the wiki. We've already made the work pages painfully neutral; should we be doing the same to the trope pages too?

Have to agree with Morgan. The previous quotes may have been too extreme and sexist. But we shouldn't censor tropes just to make them neutral. If a trope does have sexist origins or implications, those should be included in the description. They just don't have to be emphasized and dominating like the original quotes did.

"This does bring up a point, though: this trope can have Unfortunate Implications. No one, except possibly for neo YT Pism, is saying it doesn't." - nrjxll

I wasn't saying it utterly lacked Unfortunate Implications. I'm just saying it wasn't the particular implications the article suggested.

No, Unfortunate Implications are Your Mileage May Vary. Just because because you see Unfortunate Implications in a trope doesn't mean another person will agree with you.

Also, we don't tell people how we think they should write their works. Just because a troper has beef with a trope doesn't mean it has to be on the trope description. As Madrugada pointed out you can put it on the analysis page, or talk about it on the forums. It doesn't need to be on the description, trope descriptions are simply for describing the trope.

edited 1st Jul '11 8:53:53 AM by captainpat

If Unfortunate Implications are YMMV, then a YMMV sub-page needs to be made for the ones associated with this trope. I don't really care where this is organized but if a trope does have Unfortunate Implications, it shouldn't be ignored simply because it is YMMV or controversial. Put it somewhere on a YMMV page (or the analysis page), it doesn't have to be in the description.

I do think this trope has Unfortunate Implications, subjective as that may be.

edited 1st Jul '11 9:07:47 AM by revolution11

I not arguing with that as that's your opinion.

Well, as said before, the analysis page is free for tropers to use to discussion any sort on implication about a trope, so I don't see the big issue as of now is.

I'm not saying we should tell people how to write a story or use tropes. I am saying that it would be a good thing to point out potential pitfalls in the use of a trope. This is done on many other pages: why not this one?

There is a fine line between pointing out potential pitfalls, and pointless whining

But pointless whining should not be removed completely if there is a valid point in there. Remove the unneeded parts, sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If it was so easy to distinguish between whining and harsh yet true ideas, we wouldn't need this thread.

edited 1st Jul '11 12:48:04 PM by revolution11

at the very least, it should be rephrased so that it sounds less whiney.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that.

just wanted to make it clear.

Potential pitfalls, pointless whining, Unfortunate Implications etc... those are all opinions. I'm sure there are tropers who feel that those things are valid or helpful to point out but they are still opinions and have no place in the trope description. If there are trope pages with them, then remove them and, if you feel like going the extra mile, place them in the analysis page. Trope description should describe the trope itself, not the reactions they get.

edited 1st Jul '11 1:25:52 PM by captainpat

A trope is a writing tool. Tools can be misused. We should mention that. All it takes is one line: "Usually, the Beast is male and the Beauty female, which can have Unfortunate Implications." There, done. If a new writer stumbles on this trope, he'll be more careful around that subject than he otherwise would.

If we do that here, than we should have a disclaimer like that on every page, after all, it is possible for any trope to be misused.

We should take a look at the thread here. Sean Murray gives good criteria for Analysis pages (post 19, 27, 29). Does this apply to Beast and Beauty?

Some tropes are particularly vulnerable to this by their nature.

edited 1st Jul '11 5:41:45 PM by revolution11

We have a whole page for that. It doesn't need to be redundantly mentioned on the trope description. It's also worth mentioning that how a trope can be misused varies on the troper.

I would value a mod's judgement as far as what certain sections of a wiki are used for, and so far the ruling has been that discussing the Unfortunate Implications of a trope can go on the analysis page.

edited 1st Jul '11 5:39:14 PM by captainpat

"Potential pitfalls, pointless whining, Unfortunate Implications etc... those are all opinions." - captainpat

More like assumptions. Well, at least the pitfalls and implications cited in the OP's quotations.