Does Not Illustrate: Its Fake Fur Its Fine

The "faux fur" disclaimer, it is saying "the toy dress is meant to be fake fur, not real fur"; it is not a disclaimer about the actual materials used in making the toy, which under no circumstances would sell for $4k. That caption suggestion isn't good, is all.

My suggestion meant that since real fur would cost a lot more, then the doll would as well, so the price would already be a clue.

Where did you think my suggestion was actually related to the disclaimer?

That's an honest question, as something genuinely might have confused you, so we could tweak the caption accordingly.

edited 10th Apr '12 8:19:23 PM by DragonQuestZ

I don't think the caption suggestion is related to the disclaimer, exactly. I am not confused about anything.

If the trim on the dress were supposed to be real ("...glorious gown of gold and real fur!"), the doll would not cost any more. The doll costing $40 instead of something higher is not a clue that the trim is supposed to be fake fur. The doll would not cost a lot more if the dress trim is supposed to be real fur. Either way, whether it's supposed to be real or fake, it would actually be made out of cotton or whatever.

That caption suggests a Barbie doll might under any circumstances be made using real fur, and that the price is a clue that it's not. The whole point is that the inset says the fur is fake; whether it is actually fake is not relevant exactly, you might not know if the movie fur coat is "really real" either, the trope is claiming the fur is fake, not using fake fur. (Sometimes the claim is explicitly a lie to avoid offending people!) The price is not a clue about what the toy is supposed to be.

edited 10th Apr '12 10:05:34 PM by rodneyAnonymous

"The doll costing $40 instead of something higher is not a clue that the trim is supposed to be fake fur. The doll would not cost a lot more if the dress trim is supposed to be real fur."

What? You actually think using real fur wouldn't make them more expensive? Are you kidding me?

Okay, let's try a different tack - maybe "Can't have PETA throwing red paint on the toy aisle at Walmart, you know."

The toy would not be made of real fur. No matter what. It would be made out of cotton. The question is whether the cotton is supposed to be real fur or faux fur. (Which does not affect the cost.)

Making a sarcastic comment about what it actually is, instead of what the box says it is, misses the point of the trope. It's much worse than nothing.

^ Dig. Tho the "you know" sounds kind of forced, delete or rephrase?

edited 11th Apr '12 9:21:14 AM by rodneyAnonymous

I dunno, it's fairly common to tack a "you know" or "dontchaknow" on the end of a sarcastic statement like that (at least from my personal experience)...I could live without it if others think that makes it clunky.

edited 11th Apr '12 10:06:39 AM by Willbyr

"The toy would not be made of real fur. No matter what. It would be made out of cotton."

You seem to be assuming that everyone would know that. I, for one, thought it was made of some other kind of faux-fur material.

"The question is whether the cotton is supposed to be real fur or faux fur. (Which does not affect the cost.)"

That is not the question, because that is not the trope. The trope is simply stating that a fur garment or item is made of faux fur, and can even be a lie (I've read some blogs where some do that to placate strangers or friends).

"Making a sarcastic comment about what it actually is, instead of what the box says it is, misses the point of the trope."

What? The point is to assure people that the fur is fake. The picture does that already. The caption suggestion was just to note that real fur wouldn't cost that little, because it actually wouldn't. Just because it's sarcastic doesn't mean it doesn't do that.

edited 11th Apr '12 10:06:00 AM by DragonQuestZ

Anyone else?

Hearing no consensus on a caption, let's lock up and move on.