Misused: Creators Pet

I would say to err on the side of them not being Creator's Pet. If just because of the huge Broken Base that series has and all of those characters are the main contributors to the Broken Base.

Then, if it is okay with everyone here. I will make the delation. Want to make sure we all on the same page.

This example was recently put:

• Inverted by Elistan in the Dragonlance Chronicles: Margaret Weis considered him a Purity Sue and neglected to include him in a large section of Dragons of Winter Night. When co-author Tracy Hickman noticed this, she asked, "Do I HAVE to put him in? Can't I kill him?" to which Tracy Hickman replied that she couldn't as he was at that point the world's only cleric of Paladine (although he agreed to let her kill him in the Legends trilogy). As a result, Elistan's involvement in DoWN is mostly limited to saying something once in a while to remind readers he's still there.

Opinions?

Er, no. This is a subjective trope; those cannot be inverted.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Is there a Hated By The Creator page, or something similar? If not we shouldn't make one, but that's what it would be.

Okay, thanks.

Isn't the hated by the creator one Creator Backlash?

(Annoyed grunt)

No, that's a creator coming to hate their work. This would be one disliking a specific character.

If it's the protagonist, it can't fit the trope by definition, so it doesn't need to be specifically excluded. The protagonist cannot fit the third point (focus).

The only wrong thing about that sentence is that it doesn't matter where it's licenced. That has no bearing on the trope. However, being disliked in a specific region would be Americans Hate Tingle.

Check out my fanfiction!

@479: I think, considering the elements involved in Creator's Pet, an inversion can happen if you flip those aspects. So inversions would occur for character who are beloved by fans, but hated by the creators, who try to put as little scenes for the characters as possible and derail them whenever there is a chance to do so.

Out of note, the Creator's Pet example was put again, this time within the Americans Hate Tingle example, with the following edit reason: "Mana as Creators Pet is from the interview with the staff where they mentioned that they dropped important plot points for an increased focus on Mana."

edited 23rd Mar '15 8:01:53 PM by MagBas

Mag Bas, would you please tell us what article these examples are in?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Mana would be in Doki Doki! PreCure I believe?

Edit: no the issue is on Pretty Cure.

Why do we have a franchise specific YMMV page and a series one, Yet the franchise page still talks about series specific characters? The Americans Hate Tingle and The Scrappy should be scrubbed from the page for their series pages.

edited 23rd Mar '15 8:46:30 PM by Memers

I suspended the user responsible.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Question: can a character in a shared universe (like Marvel or DC) be a Pet under one writer but well-liked under another? I'm asking because the Spider-Man character Silk, generally agreed to be a Pet under Dan Slott, has begun picking up fans now that Robbi Rodriguez is writing her.

There are also a number of Star Wars EU characters, like Kyp Durron, that probably fit this.

edited 13th Apr '15 6:21:15 PM by HamburgerTime

It can very much be a writer-specific phenomenon, as author favoritism is a requirement for the trope.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Should it require a disclaimer, like, for Writer X, Character Y is a Pet?

Rather, it's probably best to focus on the episode, verse, story arc, etc., in which the favoritism occurs, as that's usually when a particular writer will attempt to show off his pet. Hypothetical:

• Creator's Pet: In the Alpha arc, Joe Writer got his chance to showcase Miss Awesome, who quickly ascended to the top of the fandom's most hated list for how she derailed all the other characters into being her supporting cast. [...]

edited 13th Apr '15 7:23:11 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Here are some entries I think are inaccurate:

• YMMV.Bucky Barnes: It doesn't seem like it fits the trope. It just describes a character that could have been a Creator's Pet, but isn't hated by the fans. Since The Scrappy, an Audience Reaction, is a subtrope of Creator's Pet, and Audience Reactions can't be played with since they're not tropes, Creator's Pet can't be subverted or averted.
• YMMV.Camelot: It has no context, it just says "Fucking Igraine".
• YMMV.Camera Cafe: It has no context, it just says "Patti in season 5, according to many fans."
• YMMV.Captain Mar Vell: I don't think the entry on Monica Rambeau is accurate. According to the entry, she only fulfills 3 of the necessary requirements of being a Creator's Pet. She fits being a Creator's Favorite ("Roger Stern really liked Monica Rambeau, the Captain Marvel of The Avengers"), she fits having Character Focus "([Roger Stern] actively pushed her into the limelight)", and she fits being the subject of Character Shilling ("[Roger Stern] repeatedly had other characters talk about how powerful [Monica Rambeau] was"). However, she doesn't fit being The Scrappy, and is therefore not the Creator's Pet. The entry even specifically mentions that she's not hated by the fans ("The fans never quite took to her, but she was never really hated"). So, I don't think she's a Creator's Pet.
• YMMV.CAW Leagues: It has little context, it just says "Happens all too often. If you're in a CAW League, you're most likely going to run into at least one of these." Plus, the indented entry under it lists an exception ("VGCW is one of the few exceptions, as its runner Bazza actively tries to avoid this."), and since Creator's Pet is YMMV, it can't be played with, and therefore can't be averted.

You can probably axe all of those.

If it just swears at a character, it's also a terribly written example and just needs to go poof.

I find that if an entry says "according to many fans", it's often a misunderstanding of what the trope is, and thinking it's just about what fans think of a character.

While you can't avert the trope as such, you can always try to avert it, as that merely requires being aware of the trope and taking steps to avoid it. You would probably need explicit evidence of it, though, so it's not just speculation, and not just "trying to write a decent character". Also, generic examples are still not allowed, so unless they point to a specific example, they need to go.

Check out my fanfiction!

^ Thanks for the info!

Here are some more examples I'm not sure about.

• YMMV.Doctor Who: The first example just says "Adric" and has no context. The 2nd one says that Donna Noble was The Scrappy, received Character Shilling, and that "the writers took a shine to her". I'm not sure if that means she was a Creator's Favorite, but if it does, she still doesn't fit the requirement of having Character Focus. It does mention that she got additional focus, but it says it got her Rescued from the Scrappy Heap for many fans, making her no longer The Scrappy. For reference, here's what the Donna Noble example says:

"As proof that Tropes Are Not Bad, Donna Noble started as this. She was very disliked in her first appearance, but the writers took a shine to her and in a move surprising most of the community, eventually brought her back as a regular companion. She received a surprising amount of shilling even from the Doctor. The shocking thing is that this eventually worked, and the additional focus on her led to her becoming Rescued from the Scrappy Heap for many."

• YMMV.Five Nights At Freddys: Not sure about this example. YMMV can't be played with, so they can't be averted or zig-zagged. Bonnie only fits being a Creator's Favorite, and is definitely not The Scrappy. As for the second example, I'm not even sure how that's a Creator's Pet, and the fact that it says it's a zig-zagged example makes it all the more confusing. For reference, here's what it says:

"Averted with Bonnie, despite being Scott's self-proclaimed favorite - he's The Goomba in 1 and 2, quickly superseded by Foxy and Freddy in 1 and the Puppet and Golden Freddy in 2, and he's almost completely absent in 3 - neither him nor his 'toy' version get a phantom hallucination - all that remains is the empty head of 'Toy' Bonnie.

• Zig-Zagged a bit. While Toy Bonnie is The Goomba in 2, Classic Bonnie is back and made much more intimidating, and is one of the more aggressive of the 9 animatronics. In 3, while both Classic Bonnie and Toy Bonnie are axed off (along with the others), they are replaced by Springtrap."

• YMMV.I Carly: The entry about Sam more or less ays "Sam sucks, which is why the fandom hates her, and she's also a Jerk Sue." Looking at the page, she's identified both as a Creator's Pet and an Ensemble Dark Horse, which is impossible, so I'd say she's just a Base Breaker. Since she's just a Base Breaker and therefore not The Scrappy, she can't be a Creator's Pet. Plus, the example never mentions her receiving Character Shilling, it just mentions people not calling her out. It also doesn't mention her being the Creator's Favorite or her getting Character Focus. For reference, here's what it says:

"Sam. She bullies people constantly, and especially Freddie on a regular basis, and no one calls her out. Carly doesn't bother stepping in with so much as a 'Stop It' on the guy who has a canon crush on her, and who was the reason for them starting the webshow that made them famous. Every character enables her behaviour, even Freddie, who has said that it would be 'weird' if she didn't hurt him. Sam was the only person to really change towards the end of the show as well, only because Sam was going to end up on the Sam And Cat spin-off show and Dan and Jennette Mc Curdy didn't want people to dislike her behaviour as much as people did before.

• It's especially annoying when even episodes that have Sam clearly in the wrong, losing and deserving to lose any way you look at it - see 'iWant To Date Freddie' and particularly 'iHire An Idiot' in which Freddie (for once) teaches Sam and Carly a lesson - wind up by seeing to it that Sam still gets the last laugh on him."

• YMMV.Jeopardy: The example just mentions Ken Jennings having an extremely long winning streak. As for being The Scrappy, I don't think he is. Judging by what I've read on the rest of the page and what I've heard from fans of Jeopardy!, he's a Base Breaker. As for Character Focus, maybe. He did appear often, having a long winning streak, but that wasn't really a creator-influenced decision. As for Character Shilling, the example doesn't mention it at all. As for being a Creator's Favorite, the example doesn't mention it at all. For reference, here's what it says:

"Since his winning streak in 2004, Ken Jennings became one. In the 2005 'Ultimate Tournament of Champions', he had a bye into the final round, whereas most players had to win their way into subsequent rounds."

• YMMV.Peanuts: The example mentions Rerun getting Character Focus, but it doesn't mention any of the other requirements for being a Creator's Pet. The example about Spike doesn't mention any of the requirements for being a Creator's Pet. For reference, here's what it says:

"Rerun, who pretty much usurped control over the strip in the last five or six years at the expense of every character not named Lucy, Charlie Brown, and Snoopy. Spike, Snoopy's older brother, also fits the bill."

• YMMV.Pinky And The Brain: The example mentions Elmyra being loved by the executives and hated by the writers, and I'm not sure if that counts as being a Creator's Favorite. Even if it does, it doesn't mention any of the other requirements for being a Creator's Pet. For reference, here's what it says:

"Elmyra. It's slightly different, though, because even the writers hate her- it's the executives that love her so much."

• YMMV.Real Life: Creator's Pet is a Super-Trope of The Scrappy, which doesn't allow any real life examples, so I don't think Creator's Pet should even be on here at all. For reference, here's what it says:

"Paris Hilton in pop culture.

• Some parents love their kids no matter what they do.
• Anyone wealthy and powerful.
• Large banks. HSBC committed money laundering, but the U.S. decided not to prosecute. The big banks also got bailouts after the 2007-08 financial crisis. Big business in general gets this kind of treatment from governments."

• YMMV.Star Wars: It says that Jar Jar and Anakin are Creator's Pets. As for them being Scrappies, that's accurate. Nearly all fans of the franchise hate them. As for them receiving Character Focus, I'd say definitely not. It even specifically mentions Jar Jar's appearances being toned down. (For context, he only had a few lines in the second prequel, and no lines at all in the third prequel.) As for Anakin, he's the protagonist (until the end of the prequel trilogy), and he appears in a normal amount of scenes. As for either of them being the Creator's Favorite, it only mentions the creator George Lucas not criticizing them, so they're not necessarily loved or worshipped by him. As for Character Shilling, Jar Jar is seen as the weird one and so doesn't receive it, and the only thing close to shilling Anakin gets is Obi-Wan encouraging him to not give into his anger in a mentor-like way. For reference, here's what it says:

"Jar Jar and Anakin are mild examples. Although Lucas toned down Jar Jar's presence in the second two prequels, he has not criticized Jar Jar or Anakin in any way (to the point where he ended up starting the What Do You Mean, It's for Kids? debate; see below) and proceeded to insert them^note or in Jar Jar's case, possibly a similar character into the most recent Re-Cut of Return of the Jedi. Anakin is currently a main character in Star Wars The Clone Wars with Jar Jar as a recurring character, but in later seasons both characters were Rescued from the Scrappy Heap for many people."

• YMMV.The Lord Of The Rings: It has no context, it just says that Tom Bombadil was based on Tolkien's (Tolkien was the author) childhood doll. For reference, here's what it says:

"Tom Bombadil; the fact that he was based on Tolkien's childhood doll doesn't make it any better."

• YMMV.Total Drama: The first example just mentions Owen having good things happen to him, and being improved later, along with being the Creator's Favorite (It says that he's Tom Mc Gills' favourite character, Mc Gills being the show's creator). OK, he fits the requirement of being a Creator's Favorite. But that says nothing about him being The Scrappy or receiving Character Shilling. As for Character Focus, maybe, since he was in a lot of episodes, but that sounds like a stretch to me. As for the example that mentions Mike and Zoey, it says that Mike was somewhat tolerated by fans, making him not The Scrappy and therefore not a Creator's Pet. As for Zoey, it mostly just says that she's a bad character, has a lot of good things happen to her, and that the creators try to make her look good. That says nothing about her receiving Character Shilling. As for being The Scrappy, it just mentions she was less tolerated than Mike and goes on to list bad things about her, which seems more like an example of Opinion Myopia than the whole fandom actually hating her. As for being a Creator's Favorite, maybe. It says the writers try to make her look good, which only sort of fits being a Creator's Favorite. As for Character Focus, maybe. Like Owen, she was in a lot of episodes, but that sounds like a stretch to me. For reference, here's what it says:

"** Owen had shades of this in the first two seasons, what with him winning the first and coming back after being voted off in the second. However, the third season improved him, giving him sympathy with his breakup with Izzy and his friendship with Noah, making him more of a Base Breaker. The fourth and fifth seasons improved this even further, with him not competing at all. Tom McGills actually stated Owen was his favorite character.

• Mike and Zoey, especially once All-Stars aired. While Mike was more tolerated by fans for at least having a story arc (at least until the reset button reared its ugly head), Zoey was just a plain, generic girl that the writers tried to promote as an ultimate heroine and embodiment of goodness. This only got worse as both coast their way to the finish with very little effort and in the latter's case wins more challenges than anybody else in the season, and are the only two to receive anything resembling a happy ending to their main conflict in the season."

• Donna Noble from Doctor Who: She became one of the Doctor's most beloved companions for the short time she was on the series. Also, main cast.
• Sam from iCarly: Main cast, so automatically not eligible.
• Real Life: Kill It with Fire and Nuke 'em just to be sure.
• Jar Jar Binks: Fails the Character Shilling criteria and the creator favoritism criteria; a CP is played up by its creator after they discover the fan dislike, not played down as happened to him.
• Anakin Skywalker: Is a main character, automatically not eligible.
• Tom Bombadil: No context, meets none of the requirements.

Those are the ones I'm directly familiar with.

edited 24th Apr '15 4:19:15 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

My opinion of game shows is to cut all examples relating to the contestants for NRLEP tropes, especially for more pure game shows rather than reality shows.

Tom Bombadil is more of a Base Breaker than The Scrappy (and is listed as both; going to take that up in the other thread).

Otherwise I'm not familiar with any not mentioned above.

Check out my fanfiction!

How can a character who appears for all of one chapter and has zero impact on the plot be considered a Scrappy in any way, shape, or form? /sigh

Fans be crazy, yo.

I also agree automatically on any game show examples.

edited 24th Apr '15 6:33:54 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"