Name more specific than trope, also named for a stage direction: Exit Pursued By A Bear

So yeah, see the page quotation.

This seems to be a very poorly named trope, it makes it seem like this trope is, well, "exit, pursued by a bear" rather than "villain dispatched via brick joke" like the laconic implies, or "villain being dispatched by non-heroic characters/creatures" like the description implies.

First things first it should be clarified as to what this trope is and is not, and once that's clarified, it might also be worth discussing whether or not it would be worth switching to a less confusing name.

It is not a Brick Joke. It's Giant Space Flea from Nowhere that gets rid of a character, instead of fighting the heroes. The original was a meta-brick joke, but there wasn't an actual bear in the performance before it chased him.

See, this is what I think of when I read the name "Deus Exit Machina".

The name is an iconic stage direction. I don't see the problem.

...I was gonna come in with "wow, that's really obscure, how did this make it past YTTKW?"

...

But it's Shakespeare, which complicates things immensely.

Exit, Pursued by a Bear, as a title, sounds like a rather negative and likely permanent exit by a neutral, third party. Reading the description, whether it's an Ass Pull or a Brick Joke doesn't really matter. Very similar to a Deus ex Machina, but doesn't need to be completely out of the blue, as the important part isn't the Ass Pull part, but the third party part, and that it's about a character who needs to be disposed.

Deus Exit Machina implies (to me) an escape that comes out of nowhere with a positive effect for the escapee, and he can initiate the escape himself.

All in all, I don't see a problem with either name or description. The history of the stage direction makes me even like it.

I'll devil's advocate: even if we don't rename, perhaps we should find redirects.

Redirects are always a good idea, but I think the current title is fine. It is the pre-existing term and it's been such for centuries.

It's a preexisting phrase. However, that doesn't make it a preexisting term that means what the trope wants it to evoke.

I don't see a problem with the name.

The image is bad, though, and we should fix the Example as a Thesis. EDIT: Killed the Example as a Thesis, fixed the laconic, started IP thread.

edited 18th Jan '12 12:38:44 PM by troacctid

It's not really obscure. It's easily the most well-known stage direction in the Shakespearean corpus, and possibly in the entire English language.

I like this title. It's amusing, and it's also refreshingly unique since it's rare that a behind-the-scenes aspect of a work becomes a trope namer.

No one's disputing that the trope namer's well known.

The question is, does it evoke the actual trope in question? Does it have anything to do with the trope in question? (I've personally completely forgotten whether the trope namer stage direction applied to a villain, as the trope itself requires, or not, and whether the situation was anywhere close to what the trope describes.)

... I think so. In most plays (or films) being pursued by a bear would be a completely out of the blue "Whuh?" experience. So that fits.

Although it only covers half of the trope. As the description states, It is a method for giving a villain karmic retribution without the heroes being directly involved. The bear is simply a Deus ex Machina for such.

I have to agree with Leaper, just because it's a preexisting phrase doesn't make it a term that describes the trope. I also think this could use a rename.

Troacctid: Nicely edited. Looks much better now.

I think the title fits. For me it evokes pretty much exactly what the trope is about. The scene it comes from is sort of an example. The guy the bear chases away isn't the villain, but everything else fits. Personally I don't think the trope need to have it be a villain, although examples with someone who doesn't deserve it are rare (I can't think of any). I think it's enough if the character has a low enough karma balance to deserve it. That usually means villains, but not necessarily.

There's no hurry, but a crowner for rename or not could be a good idea, if only for the formality. I don't see enough support so far for a rename in the thread, though.

Any ideas for a redirect or a potential rename? Just off the top of my head: Villain Chaser, Villain Finisher, Karma Saver, Karma Preserving Beast.

I think "Unsympathetic character" is something we can replace any instance of "Villain" with in pretty much any trope, really, without changing the fundamental definition. "Villain" is a nice word, though, with a good ring to it.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1326732979036720100&page=1#11

"Exit, pursued by a bear" is the Ur-Example (?) of a villain being "resolved" that way. Trope titles shouldn't all be mind-numbingly literal.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Most people are against the rename, so there is really no point in making a crowner and thinking up renames when there are other things in TRS to focus on.

But someone said the chased character wasn't a villain.

And just to confirm, the original Shakespeare is a case of a wild Deus ex Machina to get rid of a character, and not just a case of a random gag? This is a genuine question, not knowing the scene's context.

I just want to make sure the stage direction describes a situation that adequately follows the trope description, or it's a bad name no matter how well-known it is. Again, whether or not the trope namer is known is not the issue.

Antigonus in A Winter's Tale is definitely a minor villain. And that isn't very relevant.

The character is not a villain, but he is abandoning a small child in the wild. Perhaps the trope should be rewritten to incorporate other types of characters, since a cursory glance at the examples shows that not everyone listed is a villain. If we just make a distinction between an antagonistic character and the villain, the problem will be solved.

@Gwirion: I'm against a rename. Point taken, though. Suggestions were mostly for a redirect, which someone said was a good idea. I've not quite caught on to the proper procedures yet.

I would say the trope applies if it's a minor, less moral antagonist. The main point is that it acts as some kind of karmic punishment so that the heroes don't have to act on it. Almost all villains and many antagonists fit that bill. Protagonists or innocents, not so much. This is just a hunch, but I don't think it even happens against characters who wouldn't deserve it, so in practice I don't think the definition of the target matters all that much.

It also doesn't need to be a pure Deus ex Machina, but it should be an event that needs some Suspension of Disbelief, since it is about a short cut (or cheat) the author takes, and is thus not fully justified.

edited 18th Jan '12 4:09:06 PM by Feather7603

If it happens to a character that doesn't, they're a Butt-Monkey.

Well, the description has been cleared up, the laconic has been tweaked, and as a bonus, I went ahead and cleaned up the examples section too, so it's all shiny and folderized with proper indentation. We've also got a decent replacement image of Captain Hook being chased by his crocodile, which should make it clear at a glance that this is not a trope about bears and, as a bonus, that it's about villains. Fair enough to say we're done here, d'you think?

edited 23rd Jan '12 8:33:18 PM by troacctid

I'd say so. Thank you.

edited 23rd Jan '12 10:46:20 PM by Gwirion