vs. Living MacGuffin: Mac Guffin Girl

Why does MacGuffin automatically equal Key? It doesn't mean that, you know.

A MacGuffin doesn't necessarily have to be used or collected, it just has to exist and be desirable for something. (This is the fine line between it and Plot Coupon, with the MacGuffin being more about its ambiguous/irrelevant identity while the Plot Coupon is more about needing to collect/acquire it.)

There is now a page action crowner for this trope here incorporating Stratadrake's suggestion from the sixth post in this thread. Feel free to add other options as you see fit.

I apologize for not knowing the protocol, but should there be another single proposition crowner for renaming MacGuffin Girl or can a rename option be considered as part of the page action crowner so that both could be done after the vote? I mainly just do not want them to be "either/or" options if that makes sense.

edited 28th Aug '11 1:41:12 PM by LouieW

The suggestion from post 6 is ahead by 6 points.

Looks like Stratadrake's suggestion is supported nearly unanimously.

It also has only 18 votes total. Wait for it to stabilize.

^ It was mostly a Bump :P I just always try to make my bumps not contribute slightly. ^_^;

I think I would normally expect the tropes to have the opposite definitions, if given their names and definitions without having them pre-matched.

Thus, while Stratadrake's solution is good in theory, I'm not a fan of Living MacGuffin as the name of the supertrope. Desired Person or something? It's late and I'm tired.

Mac Guffins are usually assumed to be inanimate objects (or at least non-characters), so I can certainly see that interpretation — Living (adjective) MacGuffin (noun) implies it's a living object, while MacGuffin (adjective) Girl (noun) implies the person serves metaphorically as a MacGuffin, not literally was one.

I actually think Living MacGuffin works perfectly fine. A MacGuffin is static and lifeless. A Living MacGuffin fails at the whole "lifeless" thing.

Is this stable? We might be able to call it.

I really don't like Living MacGuffin unless it allows trees, dogs, and fish as well as people.

Given the choice of inclusion of non-human lifeforms or a new name, what would you prefer? Personally, I don't mind at all the occasional Maltese Oak Tree, and think inclusion would be just fine.

I'm in favour of expanding. If we need a person only trope it's going to need a new name. Not sure we do.

Despite the name I think Living Macguffin should only include things that are reasonably sentient. A tree that doesn't think or communicate some weird way because it's special might as well just be an object (because it can move or cause havoc to effect the plot), it wouldn't change how the story went.

That or soft split examples into folder based on type of living thing, I feel a Living MacGuffin that was a person, animal or plant would affect the story differently.

That one would be easy to name: Human Mac Guffin

edited 15th Sep '11 5:42:32 PM by NoirGrimoir

^ True; if the MacGuffin is not an animate lifeform (i.e: "animal" or higher), it may as well be a standard non-living object for all concerned.

Eh, I'm not really sure I want to split it like that. That's the sort of distinction that confuses people. Especially because then you get into things like animate plants and where do they fall. Let's just have it be what the name says it is. Any MacGuffin that's alive.

Make it any MacGuffin that is sentient, trees for the most part (unless they are magical or something) are not sentient.

But then we get sentient vs. sapient arguments. A hamster isn't sentient, but I'd still count it for this trope. Just make it any MacGuffin that's alive. Then there's a clear boundary instead of picking an arbitrary and blurry point on a spectrum.

Meh, okay, I guess. Might as well keep it simple.

edited 15th Sep '11 7:26:41 PM by NoirGrimoir

Sentient vs. sapient is a topic to avoid, definitely, but I'd suggest that it at least has to be a mobile lifeform. If it can't locomote of its own accord, you're (almost) guaranteed to find it wherever you set it down at last.

edited 15th Sep '11 7:45:21 PM by Stratadrake

Make the distinction interactable. A hamster can be interacted with, a tree can not. That way the distinction is handled the same way it would be by an author considering what would work for his story and what wouldn't. How would that work?

Considering the sheer number of animate plants in fiction, I really do think we're just splitting hairs and trying to make a distinction that's just going to confuse the average troper.

Hamsters aren't sapient, they (generally) are sentient.

Interactable is an interesting standard. The important part is that where ordinary Mac Guffins fall under the "object" heading, the living MacGuffin is a character in their own right.

If character in their own right is what we're going for, then Living MacGuffin is not the proper trope name. Robots are characters in their own right, but they're not living, and there are many living things that aren't characters.

If we're going with a name that sounds like Exactly What It Says on the Tin then that's what it should be. Otherwise, misuse follows.

edited 16th Sep '11 6:50:23 AM by shimaspawn