I'm not sure how a narrative can even "forgive" a character. How would that even look like in an example?
It'd be abstract, i.e., portraying them sympathetically, as a good person, even though they did something that should be unforgiveable. The same way a work can portray a character as being morally correct compared to another character whose morals may be, in reality, perfectly valid.
No longer a forum herald
I'm of the opinion that the chart in the description of Our Dragons Are Different needs to be axed and replaced with a more conventional description, as well as the whole thing needing a small trim on top of that. Thoughts?
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Question: the first phrase refers to Moral Event Horizon and Designated Hero and the second refers to the Designated Villain duo with Informed Wrongness to the Designated Villain, right?
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
The table and the next four paragraphs could be transplanted to the Analysis subpage, IMO.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Our Phlebotinum Child has the following line that I can't quite make sense of:
- Mix-and-Match Man: In cases where at least one of the parents exists as a seperate entity from the child.
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
Mummy Woomy
I'm thinking on expanding Metamorphosis's description. It currently only deals with metamorphosis as an event forced on someone by an external source, while completely ignoring metamorphosis as part of the normal life cycle of a fictional character or creature, something that's already considered in examples and the trope's pic.
How's this for a new write-up?
Natural metamorphosis in fiction usually functions similarly as metamorphosis in real creatures, with either gradual transformations into a new form or sudden changes from one phase to the next. This can lend itself to a lot of creativity in their design, can make them feel truly alien, and with intelligent creatures it can lead to some interesting interaction between "infants" and "adults", or between them and other intelligent species.
Metamorphosis by an outside source tends to be taken a lot more seriously, and as such it's less likely to actually happen. If voluntary, it's generally only agreed to after much thought. If not, it usually becomes a source of much angst and anger at the responsible party. Malicious examples can be inflicted as a form of Cool and Unusual Punishment, while benign examples can allow a character to save their life, return to nature, or Ascend to a Higher Plane of Existence.
May overlap with Karmic Transformation, Pinocchio Syndrome, Power-Upgrading Deformation, and Baleful Polymorph. Compare with Shapeshifter Mode Lock and First Law of Gender Bending. Not to be confused with the usual Transformation Sequence, even if fiction likes to use "morph" and its variations to refer to them.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
After putting a question in Ask The Tropers and subsequent discussion, it was agreed upon that it would be appropiate to put the topic under the purview of this thread.
To quote the discussion for convenience's sake (folderized due to its length):
A Jack of All Trades is a character who is (or attempts to be) reasonably competent in numerous subjects, as opposed to being a specialist in anything in particular. The key aspect of JOAT as opposed to the other two is that a JOAT has some knowledge in a wide variety of fields. He may or may not be good at anything, but whether he is or not is irrelevant to the trope. The wide-range dabbling is the point.
A Master of None is named after an old saying, and the trope itself is that saying condensed into a character archetype. The saying is simple: "Jack of All Trades, Master of None." What it means is that (and this is meant to be looked at in a real world context) if you dabble in everything and don't bother to specialize in anything, you'll end up being good at nothing. A Master of None is that saying taken to its logical extreme: A character who attempted to be a Jack of All Trades and ended up sucking at everything. A failed Jack of All Trades, in other words, but still a Jack of All Trades—because he still dabbled, and he still presumably has some knowledge as a result, but results may vary as to whether the knowledge is of any use to anybody.
A Master of All is simply a character who is an extremely effective Jack of All Trades. He doesn't just dabble in everything, he is an expert in everything.
Related: A Renaissance Man is very similar to a Master of All. In fact, I'm having difficulty distinguishing them, but if I'm reading them right, then I think the difference is that a Renaissance Man doesn't deliberately set out to dabble in a lot of things—he's just fucking brilliant, so whatever he decides to study, he excels in it. The difference between a Master of All and a Renaissance Man seems to be that a MOA is defined by his wide range of skills that are useful in many situations, whereas a RM is defined by the ease with which he learns things (and applies the knowledge). In other words, a Master of All is good at a wide variety of specific things, but could still potentially fail at learning something really esoteric, like quantum physics or sociobiology, but a Renaissance Man is understood to have boundless potential—whatever he studies, he'll excel at, because he's just... good at whatever he does.
Someone could feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood the MOA vs. RM difference.
But as for MON vs. JOAT vs. MOA, MON and MOA are Sub-Tropes of JOAT defined by the outcome of being a JOAT. namely, whether the character excelled spectacularly or failed spectacularly. If they did neither, and are just what I defined in my description of JOAT above, then they're just a JOAT.
Like, irrespective of whatever's written on the trope pages, a "Jack of all trades, master of none" is a common idea in real life, as is a "Renaissance Man", so I just took a chance on betting that the tropes line up with the real-world concept.
It wouldn't hurt, though.
So... Here we are. The conclusion was that the tropes Jack of All Trades, Master of None, Master of All, and Renaissance Man would benefit from clarifying the distinctions between them according to SolipSchism's in-depth explanation.
edited 17th Jul '15 9:29:48 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
~El Bruno — I like it. I think the definition is changing slightly, so may want to wait on a few more opinions, but I like it.
~SolipSchism — I couldn't find that distinction between tropes the last time they appeared in TRS, but I like your definitions. Are you going to rewrite them, or did you need help?
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
If it's just a matter of editing the descriptions, I can do it. I'll cross-check the example lists to make doubly sure.
All right—I tried to keep the change as conservative as possible. I didn't change Master of None or Jack of All Trades, but I added a paragraph to Renaissance Man and Master of All, a revised and shortened version of my explanation in the quoteblock above, to clarify the difference between them.
Do any other changes need to be made?
Was just now looking at Big Brother Bully and the description is literally "Older siblings as bullies towards their younger siblings as well as others."
That's a direct quote. After that it goes into related tropes and compare and contrasts.
How sweet it is
The description for Conveniently Cellmates is just one long sentence. Then it jumps straight into the examples.
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
Disasturbator
Sometimes that's all it needs,does it explain the trope?It is clear and concise?
New theme music also a box
How sweet it is
There's just... tons of stuff missing. Some more explaining could do, and trope comparisons could be added. That's what I can think of.
Square with Vertical Fill
The description of Damsel Scrappy has big list of reasons why an audience might dislike the damsel in question, but doesn't tell us just how disliked the character has to be. I.e. does the damsel have to actually be The Scrappy, or just garner a small hatedom. I took this one to ATT last month, but got only one response.
REMAIN INDOORS
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Guys, Body Language may be in urgent need of fleshing out its description, because as it stands I have no idea if adding the few tropes I have in mind to it is OK or really shoehorning. "Because sometimes, actions speak louder than words" is not quite informative, even for an index (or is it a supertrope)?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I Have Just One Thing to Say and Arson Murder And Life Saving sometimes get used more or less interchangeably. The distinction between the two was explained in an ATT discussion: "Arson Murder And Life Saving is a list of actions a character has committed. I Have Just One Thing to Say is someone receiving a dressing down only to get praised in the end." However, the two tropes' descriptions don't really make this distinction clear, which probably is the cause of the misuse.
Fossil Revival was launched with a one-line description in 2010. Ideas for expanding the description?
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"
No longer a forum herald
My idea:
Realistically, an actual fossil is nothing more than calcified remains, and little if any actual genetic material will have survived. Sometimes the writers attempt to bypass this, by having said remains preserved in ice or amber. While, again, this doesn't work, it's somewhat more plausible to the audience, so it gets a bye. Of course, when dealing with more fantastic ways of bringing fossils to life, these objections don't really matter.
This one fits squarely under Artistic License – Biology. If the fossil is simply reanimated, that also counts as necromancy.
edited 28th Sep '15 5:54:45 AM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
No longer a forum herald
I swapped out the description.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
In a recent discussion i participated(in the discussion page to Avengers: Age of Ultron), it was noted that the description of Easily Forgiven was changed in 26 jan- apparently without discussion- to include being forgiven by the narrative, not only by the other characters. Question: A TRS to gather consensus is the best idea or it is okay discuss this here ?
edited 5th Jun '15 12:54:56 PM by MagBas