Example Sectionectomy?: Wangst

In my opinion this article could use two set of changes:

• Changes in description:

This "note" should be the core of the article. It defines the term better than any other paragraph and does not really function as a note.

"Pathetically whiny character" links to Emo Teen, which is offensive.

"why hasn't this guy killed himself yet?" is distasteful plus the whole sentence does not add anything to the article.

This paragraph talks about that in some cases the angst is appropiate (which is obvious) but it does so in a tone that sounds objective, when Wangst is a YMMV term. "deserves to be mocked" is offensive, and things like this make the article seem more like Complaining rather than defining the Wangst term. The next paragraph is much better crafted and renders this one redundant.

• The examples:

They have no raison d'être. The article is not a trope but the definition of a YMMV term, so it should have a "No examples, please. This only defines the term." disclaimer like the one the Mary Sue articles have.

edited 22nd Apr '12 6:16:48 PM by Anfauglith

Or limit examples to In-Universe calling someone on this.

Exactly my thoughts. Wangst needs a sectionomy badly. Chock full of complaining, those examples.

If we can find in-universe examples of the trope, then limit it to those. Otherwise, the bile makes my brain hurt.

The examples contain "gems" such as these:

Apparently The Epic Of Gilgamesh, the Mahabharata and Shakespeare's plays are wangsty.

Most of the examples are wrong (even taking into account how this is all massively dependant on YMMV)...how can there be Wangst in music? Wangst is not angst, it's poorly written angst in a story. That's also the reason why there's no Wangst in real life, life is not written and does not follow the same rules... The Wangst article contradicts itself and shows how supposedly Wangst = Angst = spoiled whining, "emo", etc. which is extremely offensive.

Nothing should be dismissed as wangst in real life. Sigh. This is just full of Complaining and mocking feelings of angst.

edited 27th Apr '12 1:20:40 PM by Anfauglith

Heh, you missed the bile I had to axe on Sasuke a few months ago. Yes, these examples are Whining About Angst You Dont Like Or Cannot Understand.

If there are cases where a character calls out another for Wangst in-universe, then we can keep those. Otherwise, nuke away.

Wouldn't that just be Get A Hold Of Yourself Man?

Now I'm wondering if I should delete all the examples or leave the "parodies" in.

edited 27th Apr '12 2:29:34 PM by Anfauglith

An article on how easy it is for angsty characters to become unsympathetic, and examples of that happening, is useful to a site about the tricks to writing fiction. And with 5,584 inbounds, I can't be the only one who thinks that.

Wangst is a term for poorly-written angst. All characters tend to be unsympathetic when they are poorly written. The reason this has so many horribly bad examples and a lot of inbounds is that people love to complain about angst as if it was wrong, many people just want stories full of "badasses" and angst is a common cause of What Measure Is a Non-Badass?. That a lot of people seem to think that way does not mean they are right.

Angst does not have a special trait that causes it to devolve into Narm more easily.

—

By the way, I would propose:

<image>

<quote>

Angst can create compelling drama, Character Development, and interesting psychology when done well; many acclaimed works use it to a degree and the appeal of The Woobie is based on it.

But like all other good things, angst can be overdone or clumsily handled. Wangst, a portmanteau of "whiny" and "angst," (or maybe "wimpy" and "angst"— or quite possibly "wanky" and "angst"; also Whangst if you pronounce the H) is essentially angst gone wrong. It is not merely sadness or angst; it's sadness or angst that comes off as gratuitous and/or over-exaggerated due to poor writing. It's not the scale of the tragedy that the character is reacting to that's the problem, it's the way the story handles the characterization of said suffering character.

It all boils down to personal opinion; what is jarring and unrealistic to one viewer can be genuinely heart-rending for another. There's also an inherent Double Standard involving this trope — people are much more likely to be crying "Wangst" to a male character than they are a female character. This perspective is also very likely in series where all the characters, whether male or female, are expected to be badasses: see also What Measure Is a Non-Badass?.

Wangst is a favorite of characters Cursed with Awesome. It may appear during a Nietzsche Wannabe's Despair Speech. Often pointed out by playing the World's Smallest Violin. See also Narm, Angst Dissonance. Related to "Get A Hold Of Yourself Man!".

Compare Deus Angst Machina, which is about the poor handling of the sources of angst damaging the Willing Suspension of Disbelief rather than poor writing regarding the response to those sources of angst. The "wangst" equivalent for entire stories is when Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy is caused by abusing True Art Is Angsty. Contrast Angst? What Angst?, Stoic Woobie.

Not to be confused with angst resulting from a lack of sexual relationship. [I don't get what the joke is but whatever]

Subtrope of Bathos, and may be called that in literary circles.

No examples, please. The article only defines the term.

edited 27th Apr '12 3:43:04 PM by Anfauglith

Now that I really look through the examples, it is being used for just "overly angsty" - examples like Romeo & Juliet. Do we have a trope for "writer intentionally exaggerates a character's angsty-ness"?

Hmm I don't really know... Such a character would be The Eeyore, I think.

—

Anyways nearly all the examples in the article are wrong, filled with complaining and/or natter and many of them are rambling about "justification". This search for justification (or lack thereof) appears to be an arbitrary evaluation of the causes of said angst to see if they are deserving of the reaction they got, when what really matters is the writing, the execution/implementation rather than the idea itself. What I'm trying to say with this paragraph (rather than repeating the same stuff I already said about the examples) is that the current description is, in my opinion, misleading.

—

Anyways this is my first Trope Repair Shop thread, what is to be done? should I try to fix the page myself or do I have to wait for more discussion/a crowner?. It sounds like impatience but I just want to figure out what I have to do next

edited 28th Apr '12 6:37:00 PM by Anfauglith

TRS is always slow, I'm afraid. A sectionectomy definitely needs a crowner.

Here's the crowner.

Crowner tacked to thread.

Would an Example Sectionectomy imply removing entries crosswicked with the example list as well?

edited 28th Apr '12 7:08:19 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

I guess not, it'll be just like God-Mode Sue.

I don't really see the problem here. Yes, the examples need some cleaning and de-natterfying, but most of them are fairly well written and involve specific criticisms instead of just general complaining. I think they're actually kind of interesting. I don't think we should get rid of them.

It would be nice if you can post one of those examples then... I mean, I would be interested in seeing how you defend them. I took my time to say why I think they suck.

edited 28th Apr '12 6:37:27 PM by Anfauglith

Bump.

Do we go through with this?

Hollering for crowner call.

Nearly 3:1 consensus reached. Examples need to be culled.

Examples have been obliterated and replaced with "No examples, please. This only defines the term." Thanks, everyone.

Now...what do you all think about the description itself? I already posted my complaints about it.

First off, does the no Examples Please thing extend to wicks? If not, it must go to the page source - it's a continuing source of confusion otherwise.

OK, I moved the No examples please tag to comment markup since it is otherwise misleading.

Here, we are done. Requesting lock.