The Periodic Table Of Storytelling

Interesting...

DESKTOP!

Seconded!

Err... maybe it's time for some criticism here? I mean, well, you can't reduce the quality of a story to its tropes, the same way you can't reduce a drug to its component atoms or even molecules (lots of balances and interactions are involved).

edited 21st Oct '11 2:05:51 AM by PacificState

I don't think it's supposed to be taken that literally. It's just for fun. You obviously wouldn't make a story from that, except perhaps as a constrained writing exercise.

An organic being isn't just the sum of all its component atoms taken separately. I think everyone here knows that the valence links between the tropes are as much important, if not more, than tropes themselves. So, since the "chemistry of storytelling" does exist, it's not that far-fetched to assume that tropes are like atoms: smallest common denominators to all stories.

Some people probably would, but then they probably wouldn't be very good writers.

Some people assume all tropers write like this. While some of the kids here have come up with less-than-stellar, bundle-of-trope stories, I don't think most of us, past the initial awe-and-enchantment of discovering this place, would attempt to write that way.

Speaking of that, I just finished Dune. That book, I think, exemplifies and subverts many of the problems with Genre Fiction: sometimes it really feels like a bundle of tropes stitched together. Dune manages to make some social and geopolitical commentary: the world-building is top notch. However, the characterization feels remarkably weak, and forced: we're dealing with archetypes more than people. And many of the Charles Atlas Superpower described in there really feel like examples of the Mystic Eye Of Depth Perception, that is, mundane skills that are described waaaaay out of proportion to what they actually are. Anyway, I think the books reach an acceptable compromise between "troperiffic/cliché-storm" and "actually pretty deep".

James Cameron films (Titanic, Aliens, Avatar), on the other hand, really feel like a bundle of tropes stitched toghether, despite their popularity. They're polished, and spectacular, but they're really empty and void besides that (and any "depth" that they may contain is easily revelaed to be shallow, and cheap). So, trope-bundling will probably turn out something worthless, but, with care, it will be something entertaining, that will emotionally impact on people and cause all sorts of obsessions?

It's a problem, really: how does one use this wiki as a tool, without cutting themselves?

edited 21st Oct '11 3:28:39 AM by PacificState

I suppose you'd have to get rid of the pages that don't really qualify as "tropes". I can't identify any off the top of my head. I'm sure they're out there.

Zettai Ryouiki

Yeah, if I had a say in this I'd suggest that one gets cut. Unless the point, just like with Most Common Superpower, is to criticize creepy artist and fandoms for imposing this improbable dressing style into their characters.

I admit it's probably hypocritical of me to say this; I enjoy reading pages about bands and the tropes relating to music.

I think the problem is that there are some tropes which more or less describe the content of a story rather than explaining how the trope in question is used to construct the story, if that makes sense. I'm probably not putting my point across very well.

The trouble with the Most Common Superpower trope is that it's no longer a critique of the portrayal of, let's say, superheroines as being well-endowed as a stereotype or anything like that so much as it is a list of well-endowed superheroines.

edited 21st Oct '11 5:13:06 AM by TheGloomer

That sort of defeats the point the trope being named the most common superpower. I thought only subversions and aversions should be posted. If even that. Otherwise almost every heroine fits.

As for your other point, I see it too, and have trouble phrasing it.

edited 21st Oct '11 5:19:13 AM by PacificState

How do you learn to use any tool without hurting yourself or damaging the thing you're working on?

By practicing. By using it, sometimes badly, sometimes well; and learning how it works, what it can and can't be made to do, what other things it can be substituted in for or can be substituted for it, and how well that works (yes, you can drive a screw into wood with a hammer, but it doesn't hold well at all.).

Yes, there are people who think that simply stringing elements together is all it takes. They generally produce poor quality work, the same way a carpenter who thinks all you need to do to build a chair is nail boards together may make something that resembles a chair, but it won't be a very functional chair (unless he gets very lucky).

So (and I'm sincerely looking for reassurance) our wiki isn't a horribly-flawed-by-design creature that siren-calls promising aspiring writers and ruins them utterly by teaching them bad habits, such as putting the oxen before the cartwheel and focusing on plot, and, specifically, plot elements, without regard to their relevance, value, and how well they work together?

You've been reading Something Awful, haven't you?

I don't think the wiki is that. I think the wiki is sometimes prone to misuse and misinterpretation, but the concept of tropes is not an intrinsically harmful one.

Actually I found out this table over there. I woudn't want to fall into the Genetic Falalcy of questioning the motivations behind their points (I really don't understand the sheer, systematic, relentless hate they keep repeating over and over and over again like broken records), but many of them seem to have a grain of truth to them, and I'd like to take the time to separate those nuggets from all the bullshit, and, well, improve the site when it comes to:

• Cataloguing Fiction
• Helping Budding Writers Get Started

At least I haven't bought their discourse wholesale like some other tropers have, who have left because of it.

Pacific, we are about cataloging the devices used in fiction. We aren't and don't claim to be a "how to write" site, anymore than the Power Tools section of the Sears catalogue is a "How to build shit" guide. We list the tools that are available.

The closest thing we have to "How to write" is the (very small) So You Want To namespace. It has 77 articles in that namespace. The wiki as a whole contains over 80,000 pages. That means that So You Want To accounts for less than one-tenth of one percent of our pages — pretty clearly "how to write" is not a particularly important part of our site.

Something Awful exists pretty much to complain about things. They're going to find something to not like about us no matter what we do or are.

edited 21st Oct '11 9:42:21 AM by Madrugada

That. Just ignore something awful. They're just complaining because they can, they're pretty worthless.

@Maddy: Sure, but I think some users have a systemic incomprehension of what a literary device is. This leads to "tropes" like "schoolgirls wear socks" that seem to be a hair's breadth away from People Sit On Chairs.

edited 21st Oct '11 9:50:51 AM by Rottweiler

This site helped me understand how to write a bit better, though. I was able to recognize patterns in my writings, and if nothing else, I did get some good ideas.

^^ Oh, certainly, that's true. That's a huge part of TRS and YKTTW: "is this really a trope?" "Is it the same (or so close to the same as to have no practical difference) as another trope?"

But that's not the fault of the site. They'd treat a style guide the same way: "Oh, it says that for optimum readability, no sentence should have more than two commas, or 28 words. I need to change all this."

I rather like comparing the wiki to a grocery store: It's full of stuff that you can use to make something. In the case of the store, a meal. In the case of the wiki, a story. It's a place to find the parts. You still have to do the cooking (or the writing). If you know what you're doing, you can choose whatever you want and come up with something good. If you don't know how to cook, simply picking certain ingredients doesn't mean that the meal will be good. If all you're doing is following a recipe (formula) without understanding what you're doing, the result may be good or bad, or anywhere in between depending on how well the recipe works, and how closely you follow it.

The subtropes should be called Isotropes.

I like that.

edited 21st Oct '11 12:54:22 PM by PacificState

Nice one.