A "chamberlain" is actually the household manager of a sovereign. Yes, that's a real title of a real function. Whoops.
Then there's about fifty people called "Chamberlain" that are famous enough for their own Wikipedia article. There's also a band by this name, and five different cities, and a famous military operation in the Iraq War.
And let's not forget that The Bard's troupe was known as Lord Chamberlain's Men. Yeah, this is overly ambiguous and fails the One Mario Limit big time. It should be renamed.
edited 20th Mar '12 5:47:14 PM by Spark9
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!I think The Chamberlain as a trope about people who actually hold the title of Chamberlain, as it is a position that seems to matter in fiction, is a valid trope. This is just weird.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI didn't even think of people who were named Chamberlain, I thought of the occupation... which I realized I'm kind of fuzzy on the specifics of (makes me think of something like a butler only they might have more power in the household) but that's not the point.
edited 20th Mar '12 5:53:33 PM by Arha
"Character-named trope."
Historical personages are not "characters".
Do you have Word of God on that?
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!I used "character named trope" because the concept is the same.
For all intents and purposes it's the same thing, Catbert, and the issue here is one of the ones that character named tropes do get: We don't know at a glance which Chamberlain it refers to.
So is there misuse?
Haven't checked, but at 74 wicks and 17 inbounds, it's not thriving. That and the name fails the One Mario Limit big time.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.It's a confusing name. Having bad names around encourages more bad names in the future.
There is a a big difference between saying "I am confused", which is all that has been demonstrated, and being able to demonstrate that it is actually causing confusion on this wiki.
However, that being said, because this is a Real Life person and not a fictional character, we should tred more carefully.
I tend to think that we should not use the name of a Real Life person to describe a negative characterization, unless the person's name has already entered into use as an eponym that describes the trope in question. I can't find any evidence that this is the case with Chamberlain.
If this were The Quisling, it would be a different story.
Not to mention the fact that Neville Chamberlain already covers notable Shout Outs to Chamberlain in fiction (though that page has its own problem in terms of failing to write from a neutral point of view).
So, in this particular case, I'm open to renaming if someone can come up with a suggestion for something better.
edited 20th Mar '12 8:01:28 PM by Catbert
Let's not forget that all these people are named after an officer referred to as a chamberlain, which is basically a butler.
The Chamberlain would make more sense as a trope for the position of chamberlain.
Also, the real life example seems to be downright inviting Thread Mode over whether Neville Chamberlain's actions were correct or incorrect with the knowledge he had. It would be bad enough if it was about whether he fits the trope, but instead it's entirely off-topic.
We're not just men of science, we're men of TROPE!It would be very easy to call the article something like Blind Appeasement.
Speaking of debating his actions, the Neville Chamberlain page has decidingly non-neutral write-up on him that really need to be looked at.
So this should be a No Real Life Examples Please page, which includes the trope name.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.That sounds like a reasonable way to approach this trope.
I mean, this trope is named after one of the most Natter bait examples. Just imagine a character that you know is has plenty of fans and plenty of detractors, and then supposed The Scrappy was named after that character instead. It would be just as stupid.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Agree on both this sounding like the position, and that the current trope belongs on something involving the word "appeasement".
Fight smart, not fair.Actually, the trope really isn't about appeasement. It is about the authority figure that refuses to recognize/admit that there is a threat.
- A new Big Bad is on the march. Time for the forces of good to stand up and fight. Unfortunately for the heroes, the man in charge of their particular political organization is The Chamberlain, who sees no reason to do this. Perhaps he literally doesn't see the threat. Perhaps he doesn't think that the threat is a problem for their specific country. In any event, he's going to do his best to get in the way of doing anything productive to fight the villain. The Chamberlain is usually not portrayed as himself a bad guy, just willfully blind to the problem.
Having a trope for someone that tries to appease the Big Bad by making concessions would be a good idea, but this doesn't seem to be it.
edited 21st Mar '12 5:12:27 PM by Catbert
Way too negative.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Yeah, I thought about working some form of "appeasement" into the title too, but that's not really what it's about. Something like Leadership Blind To Villain Threat (though obviously less wordy) would be better.
We're not just men of science, we're men of TROPE!Ah, my bad. So something with "head in the sand" maybe? Head-in-the-Sand Management?
Fight smart, not fair.
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.
Character-named trope. Neville Chamberlain was not the first name that came to mind when I saw The Chamberlain, since Wilt Chamberlain is arguably more famous. Hell, as obscure as some trope namers are, it could be record producer Carson Chamberlain for all I know.
Further more, the article says "Whether this is a fair characterization of the historical Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1937 to 1940, is up for debate." So he might not even be a good trope namer, and the article SAYS THAT. Way to go.
17 people, 74 articles. Not the best people number.
edited 20th Mar '12 5:27:56 PM by Twentington