This looks already covered by Narm Charm and Narm. And the name made me think of something unrelated. I support cutting or merging with one of the aforementioned tropes.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
The way I see it:
Narm Charm: Something is genuinely narmy, but it works anyway.
Mostly Narmless: Isn't actually narmy, but would probably be if handled by anyone else.
Close, but not the same.
edited 20th Feb '12 8:01:41 AM by Feather7603
The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.
@Feather: Yes, but the main problem to me is: If it's not narm, it's not narm, and therefore not something we need to classify. Especially considering that the narminess of a line relies (as I see it) almost entirely on context and delivery. Bad actors deliver "To be or not to be" in a narmy way, and good actors could probably deliver "They're eating her etc." in a non-narmy way.
edited 20th Feb '12 8:21:53 AM by Fresison
Considering the difference between this and Narm Charm, there might be a reason to just merge them. It's hard to define, even by YMMV standards. Sure, you can write an exact definition, but to actually make examples follow, not so much.
Not sure what should be done, if anything, but I would say not cutting.
The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.Merging makes more sense.
By the way, this isn't very healthy. 54 wicks and 12 inbounds. We won't lose anything if we merge them.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
In favour of merging.
Whew, I have absolutely no idea what Mostly Narmless is, description-wise. And the name looks like something else, while the trope looks like Narm meets Moment Of Awesome.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The name appears to be a snowclone of the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy book Mostly Harmless.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
I wouldn't mind cutting this, but we certainly shouldn't merge the two. Their primary characteristics are:
- Narm Charm: Narm.
- Mostly Narmless: Absence of narm.
edited 20th Feb '12 9:47:44 AM by Routerie
We just have to see whether any of the examples fits under Narm Charm.
Ravenous Sophovore
Seeing as how Narm is an Audience Reaction, and Mostly Narmless appears to be defined as an Aversion of Narm, this page should probably be cut. You can't play with an Audience Reaction. We even say that on the index page for them.
edited 21st Feb '12 10:47:31 AM by ccoa
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Ravenous Sophovore
Crowner duct taped to thread.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Bumping for votes because this is is close to being call-able.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
Ravenous Sophovore
Crowner called.
Please do the merge.
edited 7th Mar '12 10:12:59 AM by ccoa
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.Right, so how do we go about the merge? There is nothing in the description that looks salvageable (an egregious case of Example as a Thesis, I might add), so do we just move examples to Narm Charm and make it a redirect there?
edited 7th Mar '12 10:16:09 AM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yes, do so. That description is as useless as hell.
Since none of the examples are Narm Charm, and by definition cannot be narm charm, hadn't you better drop the exampleswhen making the merge?
Nah, they are actually Narm Charm. Most of them involved a completely ridiculous line that doesn't break the drama. Hell, I found tons of duplicates.
Redirect made. I don't think there's any need to move the discussion, since it basically said how it's a duplicate to Narm Charm. Should we close up?
edited 7th Mar '12 11:00:26 AM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
That's not Narm Charm.
Narm Charm is when a ridiculous line does break the drama. As in, narm occurs. (But, the viewer claims to like it anyway.) So it's good that you didn't copy the Mostly Narmless examples over.
The reasons so many duplicates appeared was that both pages concerned enjoyable scenes where ridiculous lines threatened to break the drama. In one page, contributors said it broke the drama. In another, contributors said it didn't. This did not result in meaningful pages, so it's good that we eliminated one.
Right. All that's left is the wicks.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerWicks are clean. Let's call it a day.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Ravenous Sophovore
Nice work. ^_^
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?
Mostly Narmless... I haven't a clue as to what it is about. The page itself is an appallingly unfunny case of Example as a Thesis except that the example does not seem to be an example of the trope at all, seeing as how the real definition of the trope is: "This is, put simply, when a character or actor manages to deliver a cliched or badly written line dramatically." In other words, Narm Charm but more specific. The examples fit that definition, but we have Narm Charm... do we really need an extra page for occurrences of this kind?
The laconic entry, on the other hand, is: "One person's Moment Of Awesome is another person's Narm." In other words, Narm is a subjective trope. The thing is, we already know that from Narm itself, we do not need an extra trope to describe it.
What to do with Mostly Narmless? I'd say, cut it. If it's really about something (which it isn't, at least to me) it definitely needs a rewrite.