Clean up to match new definition NEW CROWNER 03/02/12: Greeneyed Redhead

We already know this, back on topic.

The more we analyze specialness, the weirder it gets.

Giving up your life for child? That makes you pretty special, I'll grant you that. Being a seductive alternate love interest? That's special too. But if you weren't already searching for a GERH definition, would you have ever called the two a single trope?

How would you have reacted if you'd seen a YKTTW saying "X suggests a character is either a loving martyr or the veronica in a Betty and Veronica love triangle"? You would have dismissed it as Square Definition Round Trope. And if the YKTTW had said "X suggests a character is either a loving martyr, the veronica in a Betty and Veronica love triangle or a significant character of any other kind"? You would have dismissed the suggested trope entirely.

X is shorthand for sultry is a potential trope. X is shorthand for virtuous is a potential trope. X is shorthand for magical is potential trope. X is short hand for special is not — it's an attempt to shoe in every possible signified trait, even contradictory ones.

X is short hand for "this character will have narrative significance pay attention to her." That's what the colouring is saying. That's what special is. It's the Author telling you to pay attention to a character. Not pointing out what the character's actions will be.

Great. So scrap all those other options. But that brings ups back to... Distinguishing Characteristic. Aka Watch This Character.

That could possibly be a supertrope, yes—but it's hard to pin down whether it should be, since picking out what traits are meant to make them stick out as a trope (that is, having a spinning disco ball for an eye might make them stick out, but there's no trope to that, since there's no pattern or convention in the audience's mind they are playing off of). However, we do have a pattern and convention here to make into a trope.

In other words, in order for us to be sure we get a trope out of it, we need distinctive traits we can pin down as being tropes. Something might be obviously distinctive to our eyes, but not a trope in its own right. This is a trope in its own right because GERH already sticks out in the reader's mind.

edited 16th Jan '12 10:47:31 AM by helterskelter

You can tell if it's this trope because the whole story will suggest that the character is uber-special above and beyond other characters. The narrative goes out of it's way to suggest it.

Ehh...I don't know. Take, for instance, Ben 10—the lead female has GERH. She's not exactly emphasized as being super-special in-universe (in fact, starting out, she's the most normal of the main characters, until she learns magic, then is apparently a half-alien Energy Being), but she's the lead female. Her coloring is definitely emphasizing her importance as a character.

I don't think it's necessary that the work go out of its way to emphasize "Look! Look at this character!" in-universe, because that's what the coloring is supposed to be doing in the first place. It's useful to determine whether a non-main character is an example, however—take Lily Potter, as mentioned previously.

edited 16th Jan '12 11:00:11 AM by helterskelter

That's only because it's harder to tell from visual media than it is from books.

I'm not sure if I follow?

Books have all the narrative to suggest the character is special more subtly, like hearing Harry's thoughts about his mother. Shows don't have this available to them so it's hard for them to do this other than to really exaggerate it or just leave you to make inferences.

edited 16th Jan '12 11:03:43 AM by NoirGrimoir

It's also possible that even if GERH meant "special," it didn't in Ben10's case. Trope or not trope, this won't be a list of all GERH people.

Yes.

Though the Ben10 case is probably a real instance. I haven't really watched the show, but being the female main lead sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it?

edited 16th Jan '12 11:15:05 AM by NoirGrimoir

I haven't watched it either, but if she's the lead, I'd think Red-Headed Hero would cover her case.

Well, we'd have to have someone who actually knows the show weigh in on it.

I'm disagreeing with the sudden implication that this trope is only to be used for uber-special characters that are uber-special inside their own work. I don't think this trope is actually used in that case. It is, as others have expressed, a trope used to signify that this character is important. Gwen from Ben 10 is the lead female. She is important. Lily Potter is important. Frankie from Foster's Home of Imaginary Friends is the caretaker and grandaughter of the titular Foster, and is the main female lead (as well as one of only three other humans). Starfire was an important member of the Teen Titans, and became Robin/Nightwing's love interest; Jean Grey was the female lead and love interest of the main lead. Jessie from Toy Story is one of the only female characters, and is the female lead by the second and third movie. And so on.

None of those characters are pointed out as being super special in-universe, but they are all highly important characters. All of them are the female lead, or else the love interest to the lead. This trope can encompass super-special characters, but I think that's more as a side-effect of the fact it's used on important characters, period.

When I said uber-special I was using hyperbole.

I don't think explicit in-universe acknowledgement of the character is necessary, but you might want to rely on implicit narrative acknowledgement as a guideline/indicator.

Yes, a good thought.

I agree with helterskelter; while it can be applied to characters who are totally unique in-universe, the actual connotations of the trope needn't be that strong.

I remember there was once this anime review that had a shot of the classroom full of newly introduced characters and asked: "Which is the character that will become important in the scene?"

"Oh right, the one with pink hair." (All the rest of the characters had black hair).

Anime tends to do this with You Gotta Have Blue Hair. My guess is that Literature and Western Animation tend to use green-eyed redhead. It's really just a way to say: "Pay attention to this character."

edited 16th Jan '12 9:06:46 PM by Sackett

So—crowner? I listed options earlier. Any revisions?

I have to object once again about "special" and "important". Seriously, any non background character is important and special. And even if there were a Green-Eyed Redhead in the background, who would really notice, or remember when the focus is never in the background? That character won't even have a name! No one will miss such a character ever.

This case is not the same that happens in Purple Eyes with "otherness" (which is hell difficult to explain, I only think I get it because of the examples I know). In this case we only have "non background characters are given characteristic traits", but not something every GERH shares. Special for "non background character" is just a list of every GERH ever.

Any of these characters are special, but so is the rest of the cast. We can't even say that they are the most special ones in the cast. Gwen is less special than Ben. Lily is less special than the main cast, Voldemort, Dumbledore and many of the characters that are alive and get "screentime" enough. Starfire is an alien, yeah, but then again only Robin is what we would consider "normal". I think that between "alien" and "child of an Eldritch Abomination", Raven wins in being more special.

And we could argue the same of almost every other character. It has to be more than "this character isn't a background one".

edited 17th Jan '12 9:24:03 AM by DrMcNinja

Yeah, let's decide this by crowner. Helterskelter, I thought your list earlier pretty much covered all the current proposals. People can still add new proposed definitions after you start the crowner, right?

I don't think we are going to come up with a definition that will satisfy everyone in this thread, so a crowner might be the best way to decide.

It's not "one that satisfies everyone". It's just "one that doesn't have obvious problems that will have to be adressed once again at a later point".

You're still missing that "special" doesn't mean "most special character in work". How you could still be missing this after it's been explained again and again is beyond me.

edited 17th Jan '12 10:08:23 AM by ccoa