Complaining: What Do You Mean It Wasnt Made On Drugs

Accusing authors of using drugs only because of their works is not serious and the definition is to vague to rewrite.

This isn't about creators being on drugs, but about works being extremely bizarre. I can't see much complaining in the examples but loads of Zero Context Examples and a snowclone name.

Bad name of course, but okay concept.

Also, what's with the real life folder? It consists entirely of legitimate media examples, but people were just too lazy to categorize them?

I think this trope is simply the poster saying "what was this guy thinking/on when he made this"?. Any entry could be this. I say a split: works that resemble tripping on LSD and other drug experiences, and the rest. Although, the 2nd trope might be unwise to create.

edited 31st Jul '12 12:23:39 AM by spacemarine50

"This "trope" is a personal experience" is a strong accusation. Any evidence there?

I don't think the image caption is helping. What does "painted by drugs" mean, anyway?

The trope is YMMV already, so I'm not seeing a lot of problem here.

The description could use some work—that whole bit about how you can't actually work on DMT or mescaline is, at least in the case of the latter, simply untrue. It is worth mentioning that people whose work was inspired by their drug experiences probably shouldn't count, but to claim that all "psychedelic" art must have been merely inspired by rather than created on drugs is simply untrue, and the effects of mescaline are little different from those of LSD or psilocybin.

edited 31st Jul '12 2:23:21 PM by Xtifr

The caption is a reference to a quote by Salvador Dalí (who painted that picture), when asked if he did his work while on drugs. His response was: "I am drugs!"

My concern is that the prominent mention of drugs sounds snarky rather than serious.

"I say a split: works that resemble tripping on LSD and other drug experiences, and the rest."

We already have a trope for "drug-trip" works, though generally restricted to animation: Deranged Animation.

This trope could describe Live Action TV, Film, Literature - basically everything. Plus, are the tropers really complaining? They're snarking, if anything. I doubt a regular on TV Tropes would complain about weird stuff :P

Clocking.

Anyway. The title What Do You Mean, It Wasn't Made on Drugs? does make it quite clear that It Wasnt Made On Drugs.

edited 12th Oct '12 4:33:47 AM by m8e

Regardless of the intention, the snark sounds like complaining.

Saying something's trippy isn't necessarily a complaint, some people find that style cool.

The only thing that seems wrong with the page is the common misuse of the trope. I don't see any actual complaining, though.

I don't see any complaining either.

I see a few cases listed where drugs were involved, would that be misuse?

I think so.

Needs a hell of a clean-up then. Something like 30% of the examples I saw confirmed that drugs were involved.

edited 12th Oct '12 8:37:51 AM by shoboni

This trope isn't about the fact that anyone was on drugs or not.

Yes, it is. It's about works that seem trippy, like the people who wrote them were on drugs at the time, but then it turns out that they weren't.

So does that mean that actually being down with drugs would be some kind of subversion?

It's Audience Reactions trope. If this guess gets confirmed, that's relevant, but neither presence nor absence of confirmation or denial are criteria for inclusion.

edited 13th Oct '12 6:48:01 AM by TBeholder

Any objections against this crowner?

I vote we just leave it alone then, it seems fine to me. Also, some of the crowner options are a complete no-go from square one.

I don't really agree with just leaving it alone, but I do agree that some of those crowner options are pretty vague.