Is this an example?

I'd say hypnosis counts. it's something that, at least in theory, anyone could learn to do, not a superpower. As long as there are superpowered characters in the work, he sounds like he'd count.

I'll see about doing a proper entry then and have the thread give it a once over. In the meantime, would this be applicable as an addition to the already existing Red Panda entry for Idiosyncrazy?

• The Poet is often used to demonstrate a corollary to this trope: if supervillains are compelled to behave in a certain way, then it means something is up when their M.O. appears to change. The Poet's compulsion is to hide clues to his coming crimes in works of prose and sonnet that are taught in universities as high points of the art. However, because series creator Gregg Taylor, by his own admission, is not such a master of the craft, the Poet's few speaking appearances have him producing far inferior works than his norm because he's either being impersonated by less talented villains, in love and letting his emotions seep into his writing, or suffering from Writer's Block.

I was browsing Kick The Son Of A Bitch when I happened across this entry under WesternAnimation.Transformers Animated.

• When Sentinel was captured by Ramjet (Liar Starscream) the Autobots attempt to subdue him but they wind up hitting Sentinel in the process.

Is this really an example? Because to Kick the Dog or Kick The Son Of A Bitch, the character has to deliberately make some sort of attack just to reinforce their vileness, and here it seems the Jerkass. character is getting hit a collateral.

I'm inclined to call it a zero context example, personally

That doesn't read like an example at all.

I've removed the entry since it doesn't seem to be an example.

I was looking at Film.Hitman (the one from 2007) and saw two examples that seem to contradict each other. The first one:

• Every Japanese Sword is a Katana: Averted: The swords used in the infamous train battle are wakizashis.

The second one:

• Katanas Are Just Better: The train duel shifts from a four-way Guns Akimbo Mexican Standoff, to hectic fencing match to the death with everyone Dual Wielding small katanas.

I don't remember the details since I have seen the movie exactly once. Are the swords used there katanas, or not?

I'm inclined to believe that a wakizashi (the short sword to the katana's long sword) does count towards Katanas Are Just Better. The point is prizing swords, and prizing the Japanese sword over the European sword. Just modify the example to reflect that.

edited 14th Jun '17 8:52:51 AM by crazysamaritan

The word "katana" has several meanings. Or rather, degrees between "sword in general" (in particular by Japanese people and people completely unfamiliar with swords) and a specific type of sword.

Katanas Are Just Better can use the wider definition, if the swords in question are treated as such and are closer to the narrowest definition of "katana" than other weapons. If everyone's using them, it's not the trope. It's about them being better than other weapons when it realistically shouldn't be the case. In the above example, I see no evidence of that.

Every Japanese Sword is a Katana is about the specific type of sword (or swords claimed to be that). If characters use other similar swords that aren't katanas, the trope is averted.

Aluminum Christmas Trees: Some viewers protested at the opening scene in which John is seen carrying a gun on his flight to LA, finding it unrealistic. In fact, current TSA policy only stipulates that John would have to be A) currently employed as a cop, B) take a "Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed" course, and C) be allowed to carry a gun on a plane by his employing agency's standing policies, in this case the NYPD. It would only apply to his service revolver, and there's no evidence online whether the NYPD endorses armed flying, but it's still possible, even post-9/11.

Please, can dissect the example?

edited 14th Jun '17 9:05:10 PM by MagBas

Sounds good.

The writing of the example or the example itself(I do know that this is a legitimate example, but following Fighteer in the ATT discussion about Examples Are Not Arguable, ""To some" may not always be a violation of that particular policy, but it is almost always an example of Word Cruft, since it is implied whenever you are describing an audience reaction unless literally 100% of people believe it. That said, take it to the "Is this an example?" thread and we'll dissect it. ")?

I made that connection; this is a case where I find the word "some of" acceptable. Someone else may suggest a rewrite for the first sentence, but I wouldn't bother with the effort.

I'd probably place it directly under Reality Is Unrealistic instead. It's more about the debate whether something is realistic, rather than whether something existed in reality. While the example seems to check out, it's also somewhat unspecific, since there are a few assumptions at the base of it. It's less, "This thing actually existed," rather than, "This doesn't seem realistic."

That's due to the unclear distinction between those tropes, and why RIU is currently in TRS. It shouldn't be under both is my only contribution on that point right now.

Could the Major from Hellsing count as a Karma Houdini? He got everything he wanted and died a happy man. Even his own death was part of the plan.

In Warhammer 40,000, the language of the Eldar is described as utilizing body language so extensively that each and every word can have its meaning dramatically altered by something as simple as the way an Eldar stands, the cast of his features or how he moves his hands at the time of the word's verbal uttering; in fact, it's possible for a pair of Eldar to have a complete conversation via body language alone. To say nothing of the heavy use of metaphors that would fly over the head of anyone without sufficient knowledge of the Eldar's myths and history upon which such metaphors are built.

As a result, other races — such as humans — find it extremely difficult to downright impossible to achieve anything resembling fluency in the language, and at best they may manage a "slow and halting" approximation.

Does this count as an example of I Do Not Speak Nonverbal?

That depends... Is there evidence that an afterlife exists in the Hellsing setting? If yes, is there any actual indication that The Major managed to elude being sent to Hell?

They don't specify if there is an afterlife, but the Major is all too happy to go to Hell.

Even if he isn't a Karma Houdini, could a case be made for The Bad Guy Wins, since he gets everything he wants?

There's a lot of debate on that. On the one hand, he died happy causing a lot of bloodshed and defeating Alucard. On the other, the war he wanted went down in history as a terrorist attack and Alucard eventually came back. Either way, it was still a victory in his eyes.

edited 16th Jun '17 9:18:17 AM by ChaoticQueen

Karma Houdini is about not being punished, not about being victorious.

It should go without saying that when The Bad Guy Wins, Karma Houdini is in effect, unless the victory involves some kind of karmic sacrifice (a la Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog or Revenge of the Sith). In fact, it's so trivially obvious that it doesn't really bear listing, unless it is called out distinctly in the narrative.

Also, a work in which The Bad Guy Wins in part 1 but the good guys defeat him in Part 3 (or whatever) does not have Karma Houdini in effect. That is only possible if villainous deeds go unpunished for the entire narrative.

edited 16th Jun '17 3:28:48 PM by Fighteer

So is that a no?

I don't know about the specific example in question; I was speaking generally. It sounds like he is a Karma Houdini, based on never suffering defeat (in his own eyes, anyway) and going to the afterlife of his choice.

Alright then. I'll add the example in a bit.