Complaining: Tastes Like Diabetes

I think this page should either be moved to Darth Wiki or have an Example Sectionectomy. It sounds too much like "complaining about shows being too fluffy".

Some of the examples look like shoehorning, since they're about individual charcaters instead of the actual work. That Batman The Animated Series one in particular. Even worse is that I see some things that are most definitely not kid-oriented.

But really, this is more gushing than complaining ("aww, look how cute that is" as opposed to "bleh, that's painfully cute") Although I do see some of the examples that go "ugh".

There's some nattery bits too. And examples tend to be written as if they're dialogue, even when they're not "replying" to anything. Examples:

Full of Word Cruft like addressing the reader, "not to mention X" and usage of superlatives.

And I'm not sure what the hell this one is:

edited 21st Mar '12 8:40:16 PM by ThatHuman

something

If any examples aren't complaining, we should cut them, because this is a page for sentimentality gone bad. Probably a good idea to cut the ones that are complaining too.

I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

Also, some examples are just shoehorning cute things from works that are neither kid-oriented nor kid-friendly.

edited 21st Mar '12 9:19:59 PM by ThatHuman

something

I meant that this article is for saccharine examples. Excessively sweet content - hence "diabetes." Any example that is neutral, much less gushing, is misuse.

The second paragraph was evidently forced in by someone who wished to emphasize that Tropes Are Not Bad. Tropes are not bad - but this isn't a trope. It's a negative audience reaction.

Having established that this page is exclusively for complaining, we could reexamine whether we want it at all.

If that's true, I'd be in favour of repurposing this into something other than an Audience Reaction, because in this case, I really think Tropes Are Not Bad.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Something weird: The second paragraph mentions that Tropes Are Not Bad, but the YMMV banner says it's an audience reaction.

something

I still remember when, for the longest time, this was not considered Subjective or YMMV - and it was practically being treated as an objective trope. That, of course, was misguided - since different people have different tolerance levels for sweetness, just like different people have different tolerance levels for angst. For awhile, that "trope" also had Tastes Like Dirt as its inverse - since since got got. Quite frankly, the description sounds a little too much like a "this thing is bad, and you should feel bad for liking it" Take That!. If this does ending up remaining, it either should have no examples - or it should be on Darth Wiki, along with other highly negative Audience Reaction "tropes".

edited 22nd Mar '12 8:39:22 AM by movie007

I guess"should have no examples" is the best option. The Darth Wiki is not dumping ground.

I'd probably also consider a rename, since the name itself makes it sound like a complaints-department page. Also, how you define something as too saccharine? Just being sugary in and of itself strikes me as not meaningful enough to trope, and besides, we have all of Sugar Wiki for that.

Human: That Muppet Show example should probably be on Dethroning Moment Of Suck, not this page.

edited 26th Mar '12 11:39:42 AM by lee4hmz

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

Doesn't Sugar Bowl already cover the objective trope aspect?

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

For the most part, yes, but that covers places that are actually really that sweet, most of which don't exist outside of fantasy works — which makes it hard to apply to something like a Sitcom that's mostly grounded in reality.

On top of that, this page strikes me as more of a messy hybrid than anything clear-cut. It's part Lighter and Softer But More So, part Complaining About Characters You Dont Like (i.e. "examples that got lost on the way to Dethroning Moment Of Suck or Wall Banger"), part "not-quite-comprehensive guide to works This Troper thinks are endearingly sweet" (which would be a welcome So Cool Its Awesome-esque addition to Sugar Wiki if it's not already there).

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

Actually, that's what Gushing About Shows You Like allows.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

I really don't think the link to Tastes Like Diabetes (subjective) should be in the trope description for Sugar Bowl (objective). Otherwise, that sort of implies that Sugar Bowl is inherently a bad trope - and, of course, Tropes Are Not Bad.

ETA: Okay, I just checked the page for Sugar Bowl - and I see that Tastes Like Diabetes has now been removed, so that's good.

I've had half a mind to think that Crapsaccharine World should be renamed - until I realized that it's not only a pun on Crapsack World, but "saccharine" can also be used to indicate that the world isn't as "sugar" as it looks. After all, saccharine is an artificial sweetener.

BTW, I'm fine with Sugar Bowl. After all, this very wiki does have Sugar Wiki.

edited 26th Mar '12 4:49:32 PM by movie007

"Saccharine" is also the adjective form of "sugar". I never knew that it was an artificial sweetener, and I don't think Crapsaccharine World was meant to reference that.

But I don't see a reason to rename Crapsaccharine World anyway.

edited 27th Mar '12 1:19:56 AM by DoktorvonEurotrash

Besides, the artificial sweetener is "saccharin" (no E).

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

I don't think this needs to be renamed. It's a negative reaction, so a negative name is kind of appropriate.

I think the complaining comes from the fact the definition is negative.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Seconding. The definition, if anything, needs to be less negative. The name is fine.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

OK. Can someone write up an actual description for this so that it gets one rather than a random rant there?

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Clocking due to lack of activity.

Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.

Hmm, while the description sounds like it's supposed to be "kids' shows that are really, really, really, *

sweet", some examples are shoehorned into "[character] is really sweet and cute". Like the Lucky Star example in the Anime and Manga section. I see at least one example about a character that isn't actually sweet (Batman The Animated Series).

I guess removing examples wouldn't be too bad, considering that this gets misused as "random things that are cute/sweet", instead of "sweetness used to appeal to a child audience". But, a way to get rid of misuse might work too.

edited 1st May '12 12:40:20 PM by ThatHuman

something

As far as I can tell, it's "sweetness being used in an inappropriately over-the-top manner"; I'd like to add "manipulative", but that would make it identical to Glurge. It's by no means limited to kids' shows, either; there's plenty of things meant for adults that are lighter and fluffier than they probably should be.

Also, if an entry is "OMG I WUV THIS CHAR SHE'S SO KY 00 T XD", it probably doesn't belong. This is for things whose cuteness you find annoying, not endearing, I think, which probably means that individual characters shouldn't be here at all (lest there be way too much bitching about the latest Moe Blob fad).

edited 1st May '12 12:58:10 PM by lee4hmz

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

Well, the intro specifically mentions:

Emphasis mine. Mentions that it's about works, not random characters or things inside a work.

But, if you look back at an older write-up, this page may have been intended as a complaining page:

Although, looking at even older write-ups, it seems like the page actually was "put anything sweet on this page".

Anyway, if it's supposed to be sweetness that annoys, doesn't that make it a complaining page?

edited 1st May '12 1:51:47 PM by ThatHuman

something

"Sickeningly sweet" doesn't seem tropeworthy.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Yeah, being sickeningly sweet in and of itself is getting really close to being Chairs, complaint magnet or not. And qualifying that by saying it's sweetness you don't like makes it a complaint page.

So I'm not sure what to do here...maybe it'd be better just to cut it and move the positive examples to Gushing About Shows You Like. As for tropes that indicate sweetness, I'm starting to wonder if there's a Missing Supertrope.

EDIT: Okay, there's not; I'd forgotten about Rule of Cute. :P I think we need a page action crowner...

edited 1st May '12 3:34:34 PM by lee4hmz

online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com