Cloak and Dagger is correct. This is Cloak and Dagger.◊ She's entirely in white and has both pale skin and hair as well, she's also the titular character. (Or one of them.)
edited 24th Feb '12 12:10:20 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickAgain, the wick check was just a formality. How does the split suggestion seem to you?
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Basically, I mean evil woman in all white, mysterious woman in all white, virgin in white, and ghostly woman in white.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.It's been a while, but the thought behind the "style" line was that the lady is not wearing white because she pulled a dress out randomly from her wardrobe, she (or the author) has a reason for it.
That said, subtropes/indexes aren't bad, and it's certainly flavorful enough to split.
Clocking as inactive.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickSo does anyone object to a split?
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.I do. I still don't see the point of it. It seems pointlessly pedantic and rather subjective.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI don't see the point of a split either.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerNeither do I. Can we just close this?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynmanbut he could add the subtrope suggestions to ykttw if he wants, btw
There has been a request to lock as stalled and inactive. Complying. If you wish to reopen the discussion, holler.
Unlocking by request.
I didn't write any of that.So if some of you disagree with splitting, could you explain why? I just find that a woman wearing all white has two distinct reasons, innocence and mystery, and that makes two tropes. Why just shove them into one simply because the color is the same.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.You mean split it like this?
Mysterious and morally ambiguous woman in white, usually emotionless or stoic. Usally a White Mage,ghost or divine.
Creepy Child,innocent or timid young girl in white, usually scared, naive or spiteful. Sometimes a ghost or a Cute Monster Girl or rarely an Eldritch Abomination in disguise.
edited 6th Apr '12 6:39:06 PM by Oreochan
"Learning without thinking is labor lost. Thinking without learning is dangerous."I like that split.
And just wearing mostly white to signify purity.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Expired clock and no activity for a month. Locking again.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Actually, this is more a splitting suggestion. The drop down item I chose was just the closest that seemed to fit.
Woman In White seems to be several tropes in one, or at least a Super-Trope. The basic definition is 'a woman or girl who is wearing all white, and is important to the plot'. That can work, but then the description directly states "And most importantly: they've got style" (comes directly from the ykttw). That part is a bit dubious, as a lot of examples don't really fit that. Or those examples weren't intended, but then decay set in.
My point is the trope's a bit messy, and the varied reasons stated for wearing white (such as purity, style, evil, death) can make for their own tropes, even if we keep this as a more broad trope.
Oh, and just in case, here's a wick check. It's not about misuse here, but I'm feeling it's better safe to do this.
Correct (as far as I can tell):
Not enough context:
Misuse (like she just happens to be wearing a white outfit):
- A New Hope
- Characters.Ashes To Ashes: A jacket and a couple dresses is not this trope.
- Brave Fencer Musashi: Her dress is not all white, and isn't meant to be symbolic.
- Characters.Burn Notice: She's worn other colors plenty of times.
- Clothing Reflects Personality: Since the trope is apparently a bit broader than it describes.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.