New Crowner Nov-10 (Example Cut): Complete Monster

This trope seems to be about way too many things at once, and people end up having different interpretations of what it is even about. You can refer to the criteria, but even that can only do so much, when there are varying interpretations even of them. Does the second imply that goofiness in audience eyes detracts from CM status, or refer exclusively to how seriously one is taken in-universe? How close to sufficient does an excuse have to be to negate the third? These are just a couple of examples of questions that are frequently asked about the criteria, and even in threads about specific subpages of this trope, many different users give very different answers that cannot be reconciled with each other.

Speaking of that thread I just linked to, that thread was about one subpage of this trope. One subpage. And when I tried to help clean it up by encouraging users to go through the characters, one by one, in the order in which they appeared, it almost seemed to be going smoothly until various users argued certain earlier characters were not discussed enough, causing confusion between which character was the current topic of discussion; soon enough, we were all over the place all over again. That would be like trying to study with severely disorganized notes.

Again, that was just for one subpage.

Even if it were to eventually work; and I am not sure if it would; I would still doubt it would be worth the effort. It seems to me like this effort that could be better spent on better tropes. Ones with clearer definitions, for that matter. Even the different things different people use this trope for could be put into other tropes, if we were to split off the components as such. *

And even that is putting aside the natter this trope is prone to. Normally I am inclined to blame the users involved, rather than the trope itself, but if that wasn't good enough for troper tales, why should it be good enough for this?

This trope is despicable, it is hated, it seems not to have much justification for it, and I doubt it can be redeemed.

edited 7th Nov '11 5:24:47 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

This thread has also gone into details about the fundamentally unhealthy state of this trope.

For the record, my belief is that the underlying definition of this trope can be salvaged, but that the Complete Monster "brand" has basically become irreparably damaged - by which I mean it's not just the name, but everything around the page that's become tainted. The concept of a villain who is totally and irredeemably evil, I think, is tropable, but people need to get it through their heads both that it's different from "villain I don't like" and that it is not a necessary sign of a "good" character, and I think that can only be done by starting completely over.

edited 6th Nov '11 8:36:58 PM by nrjxll

I say we should cut the current form first, then discuss what to do with the underlying concepts afterwards.

edited 6th Nov '11 8:47:13 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

One thing I particularly don't like about the trope is that its definitions consists mostly of negatives. "This is a villain who LACKS a freudian excuse, who CANNOT be redeemed, who shows NO altruistic qualities, whose actions are NEVER played for laughs." Okay, those are all tropes that DON'T apply to this character, but what IS a complete monster, so that we can document it? It's someone who... "personally commit heinous acts." Um, okay.

I've noted before that I think the real core of this trope is in the Pure Evil redirect.

My point is that I think that there very definitely is a trope here, but it's been lost under all of the baggage this has picked up over the years.

All I can say conclusively at the moment is no cutting without a Plan B, please.

I'm confidant that there is a bona fide trope in here and don't want to see it go, but it's history of problems are well documented.

The fact that the trope at its core can be summarized as Pure Evil is itself what I would argue to be the heart of the problem. It's a very YMMV concept. Pretty much any two people will have some differences over what is and isn't Pure Evil.

Once examples become immensely widespread, it's going to be come apparent at some point that some examples aren't as severely or purely evil as others, and that is always going to make problems when a page is written to be about "the absolute pinnacle" of evil.

edited 6th Nov '11 10:18:31 PM by SeanMurrayI

Perhaps it could be restricted to characters said in-universe or by Word of God to be Pure Evil/irredeemable.

Actually a girl.

Actually, that was a good point made earlier. We know what a Complete Monster isn't, but what is it, other than a Moral Event Horizon, that makes a character this trope?

See, that's the thing - I don't think it really is a very common trope, and furthermore, as I mentioned on that Trope Talk thread, I think it tends to actually have more flat characters then anything else.

Honestly, I think there is a part of this trope that is salvageable...a part that is salvageable.

The part that can't however, is the name. The name is forever tainted into Gushing About Villains You Love. Honestly, if the criteria-based trope went under a different name and we left Complete Monster to rot like Crazy Awesome, I think things can work out.

edited 7th Nov '11 3:28:03 AM by JustaUsername

Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.

My understanding was that is already treated as a subjective YMMV trope. Is it really causing that many edit wars?

I hate the YMMV ghetto...

The thing about the trope is even though it was YMMV, it has standards. It's just people have been putting villains that don't fit into the criteria not only on the trope subpages but the YMMV page of other works!

edited 7th Nov '11 3:30:21 AM by JustaUsername

Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.

How rigid or defined would those standards be if the page's basic premise is YMMV?

Unless Complete Monster is somehow turned into a fully objective concept, I feel disagreeable examples are pretty much here to stay one way or another no matter what; it's just a natural part of being YMMV in the first place.

Wow...there hasn't been any edit wars our anything since the whole western animation/Disney fiasco, the trope and its pages are well curated, and you want to cut the whole thing because you personally hate it?

...Yeah, I'm against cutting.

Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.

Not to mention the examples sections of other tropes, (ie. saying that X Moral Event Horizon example is from Complete Monster character Y) or said other tropes' entries on works' pages. We're probably going to need to redlink this.

edited 7th Nov '11 5:17:48 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I wouldn't cut this, but I have to wonder if it should be on Darth Wiki instead of Main, since it seems to have many of the same problems as So Bad Its Horrible did.

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

I think the issue with this and Moral Event Horizon (a page which was meant to clarify complete monster, when created) is that the examples just cause trouble. The terms are useful, but the squabbling about who/what qualifies has never stopped for an instant.

I say cut the examples from both.

edited 7th Nov '11 5:24:09 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

Look, there hasn't been any form of trouble with this trope since one troper (forgot his name) started throwing a hissy fit in the western animation page. Since then, that page can only be edited by mods, and none, I repeat, none of the other pages have had any trouble.

I seriously think you're overreacting with this.

Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.

You say this as if flamewars were the only problem. I already mentioned many others in the OP.

I wouldn't give up on Moral Event Horizon just yet, it too has problems but not on the same level as Complete Monster. At the very least, being more clearly defined and being about a fewer number of things seems to make Moral Event Horizon a more worthwhile trope...

edited 7th Nov '11 5:30:05 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Okay, I can understand cutting Complete Monster but cutting Moral Event Horizon is a terrible idea!

While only one who is familiar with TV Tropes would understand what a Complete Monster is, it is common for writers to set up a Moral Event Horizon for their villain.

It's a valid trope and we shouldn't throw it away just because it's related to Complete Monster.

edited 7th Nov '11 5:30:37 AM by JustaUsername

Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.

Cut the examples, not the article.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty

There are no other problems though. As I said before, the subpages are extremely well curated. You're just demanding that the entire section be condemned because one subpage is giving you trouble.

Again, for reference, when that one troper was raising a storm in the western animation and disney pages, we had a vote to decide what to do (cutting the whole thing was an option, btw). Ultimately, it was decided that only the problem pages would be locked, and any edits had to go through the mods.

And, again, none of the other pages have had a problem since.

Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.

Though cutting's always an option, I don't see what purpose the page would serve without examples. Exampleless pages define external concepts, usually ones that have pre-existing names. Complete Monster does not cover an existing concept. "Evil person" is an external concept, a broad one, but Complete Monster is just a page we made for characters that satisfy certain criteria criteria — we picked for the sake of the page itself.

And without examples, the page will just come across as a guide on how to write villains. Or on how not to write villains. Except it won't come down on either side of that...

edited 7th Nov '11 5:40:31 AM by Routerie

You mean that for MEH, CM, or both?

In each case, about examples crosswicked with each, would you suggest going through them one by one and cleaning them up, or renaming said tropes and redlinking the old names?

edited 7th Nov '11 5:44:55 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart