In Which a possible New iteration of the trope Description is proposed:
If we're mostly agreed that the self-demonstration could be kept for title portions within the page, as that is the trope, then here's my proposal for a clearer description of the trope. Open for proofreading and tweaking, obviously:
Sometimes writers like to have fun with older styles and conventions, and sometimes this extends to titles as well. In Which a Trope Is Described
is a titling convention
with an intentionally Retraux
feel; many 18th- and 19th-century (and occasionally, early 20th-century) works had extended titles which pretty much summed up the main events of the installment.
When this trope is played straight, it's basically a pastiche or parody
of what used to be a serious writing convention, and not as likely to be taken seriously today. For a title to count as an example, it has to thoroughly describe what happens using either very formal or outdated-sounding words and grammar
, whether that means randomly capitalized words, semicolons instead of commas, gerunds instead of nouns (e.g. "using" instead of "usage" or "use") or stilted conjunctions and adverbs like "wherein" or "being."
By definition, any straight example of this trope is also an example of Exactly What It Says on the Tin
and Antiquated Linguistics
, and usually also Spoiler Title
and/or Long Title
. Compare with the Either/Or Title
, which also has a very Retraux
feel. Easily subverted if the title doesn't match up with what happens, making it a straight example of a Nonindicative Name
. Not to be confused with a Word Salad Title
, which is more like an inversion of this trope.
edited 21st May '12 2:45:37 PM by NaphthaTurisas