um...im a gobble you up?Firstly the problem isn't just the name but the intro relies on too much blue text to get the point across. It also seems to have a "Don't you dare pity me" vibe but is that part of the trope? It isn't in the Intro. But in the article it sounds like removing certain things most people would consider a problem is considered negative in a "my thing makes me unique/different" way. The name. Is it supposed to be someone pitying the perversion of another or is it about the perversion of pitying? If its the first example it carries the implication that the perceived perversion in the person really is bad which leads to a broken trope. The word "Perversion" itself carries the connotation of this trope so that would be rather ironic if it was the first one. The "Secretary", "The SM Judge", "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" examples need work for natter, not explaining the situation or lacking context and I don't know them well enough to deal with them. Finally the article seems to have been revised in the past but someone was lazy and didn't clean up the page very well as there are references to Type A and B Pitying Perversion in the "German cartoonist Ralf König" part but I have no clue what "Type A and B Pitying Perversion" is referring to or the comic in question so that also needs work.
Some things are meant to be eaten
I see the Awesomeness.Agree, it's built really weirdly. I'm getting something of a "character oriented" view from it. Fixed tag, you have use a Wiki Word to get the tag to link properly.
edited 9th Jun '12 3:54:18 AM by Deboss
Wall of Text of an Author Tract as a description, and many shoehorned examples. Just for a start, the title is completely wrong: Most examples are about people who aren't even called perverts by their enemies. My suggestion: Let's make a page crowner to kill the page. If you think some of the examples are actually useful, put them on the according pages. The quote, for example, would fit better on Don't You Dare Pity Me!.
I don't think this is Don't You Dare Pity Me!. This is about someone who is well meaning in their condescension. Like a great lord who will act friendly around the servants and even maybe seem like friends of theirs, but doesn't really take them seriously. They're not lords, after all. That said, it would need a rename and a rewrite for that, I think.
edited 13th Jul '12 6:02:42 PM by Arha
Highly visibleagreed. This trope is about someone who think of themselves as generous and kind when pitying someone, but fail to realise they come of as unnecessary condescending. Don't You Dare Pity Me! is about someone who really has it bad but ther pride won't let them accept pity or any sympathy at all, while in Pitying Perversion the object of pity might not have any problems at all. They are just what they are, and they're OK with that.
edited 13th Jul '12 10:42:36 PM by kundoo
Don't You Dare Pity Me!. I just pointed out that we could move the quote to that page, where it'd fit at least.
Highly visibleOh, righ, sorry. Though I don't think this page should be killed. There is a trope here - about pitying someone who is perfectly ok and doesn't need pity. I actually read Pitying Perversion as "perversion of pity" and it kinda made sence to me. Though maybe it need some clarifying in definition.
edited 14th Jul '12 10:24:21 AM by kundoo
A worm for ChristmasThis trope seems to have an Example as a Thesis issue. It makes the description barely identifiable. And the name isn't all indicative either.
Yeah, perversion just isn't the right word to use. This could easily be a social class thing. The trope is more like Condescending Friendliness or something.
Highly visibleI like it. Condescending Friendliness is pretty much what this trope is about. upd: I'm thinking now, is friendliness an obligatory part of the trope? Like "I pity those poor [minority group], they can't help it." but withiut actually befriending a member of said minority. Also possible variants: Unnecessary Pity, Misguided Condescension
edited 14th Jul '12 12:53:53 PM by kundoo
A worm for ChristmasDoes it need to be "condescending", though?
Highly visibleI just feel, we have to get rid of the word "pity", 'cause that's what leads to the confusion with Don't You Dare Pity Me!. Maybe there's some better word, but right now I can't think of it.
edited 14th Jul '12 1:07:14 PM by kundoo
^^ It's about condescension, not pity. Pity can be a part of it, but the real core part of it is that the person assumes they're better than the other person but 'doesn't hold it against them' or acts nice to the commoner. That sort of thing.
A worm for ChristmasThat's what we get from having a horrendously badly written description.
And a crap name. So, favoring rewrite and rename. The rewriting doesn't need a crowner, the rename does. Shall we go ahead with that?
Example as a Thesis? I really didn't know this. I would rather have guessed the page was more like "trope pages aren't supposed to be written like stuffy academic papers!"
edited 14th Jul '12 5:43:12 PM by FELH2
We're not changing the definition, we're making it clearer. Also, technically broadening it. Redefine and rename is a fairly common course of action for a trope that doesn't know what it wants to be.
Example as a Thesis is not an automatic "must be fixed" thing. Example as a Thesis needs to be fixed only when it hurts your understanding of the trope. Shoot the Shaggy Dog has had an Example as a Thesis forever, and it stays there because it works.
A worm for ChristmasAnd in this case it does harm the understanding
Normally they'd want two more votes, I believe.
There is no such thing as a quorum, no.
Special trousers. Very heroic.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.