Needs Help: Torture Always Works

Torture Always Works is one of those tropes that has lots of aversions—not on the page itself any more, but still, there are quite a few scattered throughout the wicks. Last time this came up, the solution was just to cut the aversions and call it a day. But I think splitting off a Torture Never Works trope would be a good idea. Every series seems to use one of the two mindsets. They either have the message of "You think someone can just grit their teeth and bear it? No, Torture Always Works" or "You think ripping off someone's fingernails is a reliable way to get information? No, Torture Never Works." This might work with a few of the other aversion-happy tropes, but it would definitely work for this.

I just wish I thought of it last time. Any chance we have a copy of the stuff that was cut?

Wouldn't an aversion of this trope consist of ZERO torture?

Most of what's being called an "aversion" here is torture for interrogative purposes that fails to make a suspect confess or cooperate, which would be a subversion; the trope plays out, only to have subverted viewer expectations for it.

Or am I wrong and a subversion of Torture Always Works is actually something entirely different than what I described?

edited 9th Aug '12 1:56:41 PM by SeanMurrayI

You might be right, but people are labeling those as aversions regardless, and they need a place.

edited 9th Aug '12 3:26:10 PM by Discar

I'd say a soft split between examples where torture is an effective interrogation technique (straight trope) and examples where it doesn't work in an interrogation (subverted) would be fine, especially if the subversion is as commonly found as it has been described to be. Any example that's called "aversion" that involves torture can probably be labeled a "subversion". Anything that's truly an aversion shouldn't even involve torturing anybody in an interrogation and simply shouldn't be mentioned in examples; those, if they're truly present, can be cut.

Aside, it may be worth considering a rename. Seeing that both Tropes Are Flexible and, as the examples show, torture doesn't always work, maybe it would be worth giving this a broader, more general name, like Torture As Interrogation Technique or something, that doesn't boast an obviously untrue 100% success rate.

edited 9th Aug '12 4:45:31 PM by SeanMurrayI

I wouldn't count it as an automatic subversion just because torture doesn't work in one case. Let's say it's an action film, and the villains are going to torture the hero for information. Would you expect the torture, if the hero was played by someone like Arnie or Sly, to actually work? It's hardly subverting anything when it inevitable doesn't work. Now, if it did work, on the other hand, it would be a subversion of what you'd expect.

The trope claims it always works, but that's hardly always the expectation. There are always a lot of factors that determine whether it will work or not. Probably the most significant is if it's the heroes or villains who're doing it.

edited 10th Aug '12 4:34:49 AM by AnotherDuck

Ah, another of our problematic "always" or "everything" pages.

Torture sometimes works and sometimes does not work. "Torture always works" and "torture never works" are both untrue. If we want a page about the attitude; that torture always works, we can name that Torture Always Works, but that page should not list examples of torture simply working - it should list cases where a characters expresses conviction in torture's effectiveness.

We can split our torture examples into Effective Torture Interrogation and Ineffective Tortune Interrogation. (Better names of course.)

If the trope is going to be titled Torture ALWAYS Works, then YES!

Then what IS our expectation? Merely torture used as an interrogation technique, regardless of success or failure? Then let's find a better name that has nothing to do with guaranteed success or failure, then all the examples that are still being incorrectly called "aversions" (which they still aren't, even if you don't think they're actually subversions) would still have an appropriate place on the page.

edited 10th Aug '12 7:17:24 AM by SeanMurrayI

Would you change your expectations of a film based on what a trope's name is?

My expectations for a FILM are completely separate from expectations for a trope. My expectations of a TROPE (which, I guess, is to say, "the straight form of the trope"), however, will be based on the trope name and description.

edited 10th Aug '12 7:14:06 AM by SeanMurrayI

I asked about the film.

The point is, if you don't expect it to happen in the film, it's not subverted when it doesn't happen. The trope that it does happen is simply not there, thus averted.

It's as said before, not all works featuring torture will feature this trope. Many probably will, but not all. Just because there is torture doesn't mean a particular torture trope will always be present or even expected.

In other words, it's a bad name and description.

And I asked about the trope. That seems more relevant to us.

Anybody can try and anticipate a given trope being subverted in a movie. That doesn't stop the occurrence from still being a subverted trope.

So what? Nobody has said that this trope is about "all works featuring torture", anyway.

I've never once referred in my posts to the subject at hand as general torture. In fact, I've been quite insistent on referring to all examples of the current trope with the much more specific phrase torture as an interrogation technique. Any work featuring torture as an interrogation technique WILL be featuring this trope, regardless of whether it is ultimately portrayed as an effective or ineffective tactic.

edited 10th Aug '12 8:25:25 AM by SeanMurrayI

For a trope to be subverted you have set up the expectations for the trope to be in play. If you don't do that, and don't use the trope, it's averted, not subverted. Tropes are about what actually happens in the works and how the creators use and abuse them, accidentally or deliberately, not what we write here.

The latter part wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just my general thoughts about the trope, and what you wrote is pretty much what I think as well, if I understand you correctly. A trope like Torture As An Interrogation Technique will feature in any work that uses torture as an interrogation technique, since you're setting up the torture to work as an interrogation technique. Not to be redundant or anything... However, a trope like Torture Always Works is only in play where it's set up to always work. It's not something you can assume everyone thinks.

Large part edited before I read that, but after it was posted.

edited 10th Aug '12 8:33:17 AM by AnotherDuck

Indeed, and in its present form, the straight trope in play is torture as an interrogation technique "working". The subversion, therefore, would be the same thing, except "NOT working", which is what most examples (incorrectly) labeled "aversions" actually describe. You follow?

An aversion of this trope would consist of NO TORTURE during an interrogation (or NO INTERROGATION during torture). Torture during interrogation that FAILS to work would be a subversion of something called Torture Always Works.

edited 10th Aug '12 8:30:42 AM by SeanMurrayI

The subversion would only happen if it's implied that the torture will definitely work.

If someone says "I guess I'll try torturing this guy, maybe I'll get some information out of him, maybe not" and then it doesn't work, that's just an aversion. The trope wasn't used, and the audience was never given any reason to think the trope would be used.

If the expert CIA interrogator says "I'll have to torture this guy. It's messy, but it's the only reliable way of getting the information," and then it doesn't work, that's a subversion. The audience is led to believe that this trope is going to be used, but it never is.

edited 10th Aug '12 4:47:31 PM by abk0100

Honestly, no credible interrogator (real or fictional) would employ any kind of interrogation tactic, from torture to good cop/bad cop, unless they already believed it would get them somewhere beforehand. There's no way an interrogator is ever going to effectively assert dominance over a suspect (or be taken seriously by a viewing audience) if he/she thinks what he/she is doing isn't going to be effective; it's just plain stupid. I've certainly never heard anybody talk like this about interrogation—not even in movies.

Even if a character, does say something this stupid before an interrogation, it would still make the occurrence a valid form of Playing with a Trope and nothing close to an actual aversion.

edited 10th Aug '12 5:29:50 PM by SeanMurrayI

I disagree for reasons posted before. "No one would do that" is an extremely weak argument. It's been done in some games, where you sometimes have the option to be cruel.

Also, "The only times when torture doesn't work is when the tortured is just too Badass to be broken, and doesn't say anything at all." So, the trope itself says that it doesn't always work. If it doesn't always work, you can't expect the trope to always be in play when there's torture for information going on in a work. You have to have torture for interrogation and a belief that it's reliable and will work.

It could also be Based on a True Story. That may direct the plot to happen one way if they want to keep more true to the original. Being based on Real Life, it should follow Real Life logic more than Hollywood Logic.

As I said before, just because we write a trope here that claims it's always in play doesn't mean that's actually true. We're not the ones dictating what tropes exist the works. We just collect, analyse, and describe what's there.

edited 10th Aug '12 10:14:22 PM by AnotherDuck

I like this discussion. Both sides have good points .

Another Duck seems right. The work must set up the expectation to subvert it. If your expectation stems from familiarity with the trope rather than the work's own setup, that's an aversion, not a subversion.

Any trope's aversion may feel like a subversion if you expect it strongly enough. For instance, if you expect black characters to die first, one not doing so would seem to subvert your expectations. But it is an aversion of Black Dude Dies First, not a subversion, unless the work goes out of its way to suggest the black character will die first.

Not really. It's not like you're providing me with definitive examples of it actually happening that would disprove what I said, anyway. Are any of the "aversions" that are actually other legitimate forms of Playing with a Trope involving somebody suggesting anything along the lines of, "I guess I'll try torturing this guy, maybe I'll get some information out of him, maybe not"?

For all we know, "when the tortured is just too Badass to be broken, and doesn't say anything at all" could be set up in the work through Playing With this trope, which means it could still be made a trait established through subverting trope expectations.

Again, do any of the "aversions" found on the page contradict what I say about them? From what I'm seeing, true aversions which describe interrogation techniques in works that do not feature any torture are rare; they're on the page, but they're very, very few. Everything else called an "aversion" could just as well be called a subversion, deconstruction, discussion, or any other valid form of Playing with a Trope. One "aversion" even insists the trope is played straight in the same exact occurrence.

edited 10th Aug '12 11:43:09 PM by SeanMurrayI

I have more to say, and I can dig up some examples as well, but at this point, I'm just going to say, "I disagree." I doubt you'd accept whatever I said anyway, so I don't think there's any point in continuing.

This trope does not reflect the actual use in stories, and should thus be reworked.

The only reason I'm doubting anything you're saying now is because you are saying things like "That is a weak argument" and "I disagree" without giving any factual basis to even back your point up.

If you actually did share examples that definitively refute my points, certainly, you can change my opinion. If you don't, I feel at liberty to doubt your rebuttals.

I've said as much already myself. So what'll it be? Rename? Tweaked focus? Rewritten description?

edited 11th Aug '12 12:20:20 AM by SeanMurrayI

I don't believe you, and you've given me no indication that I should. It's pointless anyway, since we agree the trope should be changed anyway.

Many of the examples that do work belong under Enhanced Interrogation Techniques or High-Altitude Interrogation. We can perhaps start on moving tropes from here to those, and then see what's left.

edited 11th Aug '12 4:42:03 AM by AnotherDuck

Let me see if I can bring up some specific examples to explain:

• Averted in Day 8. Bauer tortures a Russian sniper, going much farther and being far more brutal than ever before, but fails to gain the information he wants. He discovers that the intel is inside the Russian's cell SIM card. Then again, Jack guts the Russian to get the chip.

That's probably a subversion. The audience has been led to believe that Jack only tortures people because he knows what he's doing and knows that it's the best way to get info, but, this time, it doesn't work.

• averted with Angelus's torture of Giles. He was doing it partly for kicks, but never managed to get the information he wanted. In the end, Drusilla had to step in with her Hypnotic Eyes.

That's an aversion. When Angelus decides to use torture, the audience isn't being made to think "torture is a 100% reliable information gathering technique," they're thinking "Oh no, Giles is going to get tortured."

Well, you're still giving me no indication why I should believe I have "weak arguments", so you're still not helping yourself with anything, anyway.

Honestly, if you're not going to give a tangible reason to support why I have a weak argument, that's going to be a significantly less influential argument than if you actually did lend actual support to your initial, otherwise empty claim. You may as well have not responded to anything I said in the first place.

Regarding the other pages you bring up, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques appears to be specifically about "torture not being regarded as such by characters or an audience", but most examples on that page, which just describe torture as an interrogation technique, would likely belong here on Torture Always Works (or any more general page about Torture As An Interrogation Technique). That page should probably get some attention in the Repair Shop, as well. I'm only finding one example on Torture Always Works that is a High-Altitude Interrogation, and I can move that right now to the proper page.

Soooo.... just that one example on the page of an aversion being an actual aversion then? If that's the only only one, I'll wipe it out in the same sweep with the single High-Altitude Interrogation example. Every other instance of "aversion" can be changed to "subversion" or "deconstruction" or "Played With" or whatever (assuming nothing else is done about changing the name or tweaking the focus of the description)?

edited 11th Aug '12 10:21:29 AM by SeanMurrayI

I wasn't trying to list every aversion - I was trying to explain why only some aversions count. Take this other example:

• Thoroughly averted in Raiders Of Gor, where the Anti-Hero quickly establishes that the racked prisoner "will say whatever we tell him to."

Don't change that to "subverted" unless you can be sure that this trope was set-up. The fact that someone used torture doesn't necessarily mean that this trope is being implied.

edited 11th Aug '12 10:55:04 AM by abk0100

Now you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think the difference between Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and this one is that the first one is mainly about threats than torturing someone until they break. It may involve harming, but the purpose is still to scare them into fessing up. Most examples do fit the definition as I understand it.

There's no use in "fixing" examples on this page until we've decided what the definition should be.

Personally, I see a large difference in how torture is handled depending on if it's the hero or the villain who's doing the torturing, and, maybe more importantly, if the victim is a hero/main villain, or a lesser character.

Strong characters like heroes and main villains only give (correct) information up exception, while minor characters are more likely to fess up.

It also depends on how cynical the story is. The more cynical, the more the outcome favours the villains. If it's a minor hero who's being tortured, he's more likely to spill. If a minor villain is being tortured, he's more likely to lie. Of course, the more cynical, the worse the torture will be, in either direction.

At any rate, turning it into a more outcome-neutral trope like Torture As Interrogation Technique would help it. Then the focus can be on how it's played (realistic, as a shortcut for information, or if it's used in a clever way). Considering the many ways it does play out, and the different expectations of it depending on genre, I think this is much better than falsely claiming it always plays out one way.

edited 11th Aug '12 11:01:25 AM by AnotherDuck