Do you have trouble remembering the difference between Deathbringer the Adorable and Fluffy the Terrible?
Do you have trouble recognizing when you've written a Zero-Context Example?
Not sure if you really have a Badass Bookworm or just a guy who likes to read?
Well, this is the thread for you. We're here to help you will all the finer points of example writing. If you have any questions, we can answer them. Don't be afraid. We don't bite. We all just want to make the wiki a better place for everyone.
Useful Tips:
- Make sure that the example makes sense to both people who don't know the work AND don't know the trope.
- Wrong: The Mentor: Kevin is this to Bob in the first episode.
- Right: The Mentor: Kevin takes Bob under his wing in the first episode and teaches him the ropes of being a were-chinchilla.
- Never just put the trope title and leave it at that.
- Wrong: Badass Adorable
- Right: Badass Adorable: Xavier, the group's cute little mascot, defeats three raging elephants with both hands tied behind his back using only an uncooked spaghetti noodle.
- When is normally far less important than How.
- A character name is not an explanation.
- Wrong: Full Moon Silhouette: Diana
- Right: Full Moon Silhouette: At the end of her transformation sequence into Moon Princess Misty, Diana is shown flying across the full moon riding a rutabaga.
Other Resources:
For best results, please include why you think an example is iffy in your first post.
Also, many oft-misused tropes/topics have their own threads, such as Surprisingly Realistic Outcome (here
) and Fan-Preferred Couple (here). Tropers are better able to give feedback on examples you bring up to specific threads.
For cleaning up examples of Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard, you must use their dedicated threads: Complete Monster Cleanup, Magnificent Bastard Cleanup.
Edited by Synchronicity on Sep 18th 2023 at 11:42:55 AM
I think the question is more is it Values Dissonance, because of ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
, or Deliberate Values Dissonance, because while the writing shoes the values of the time, it's being written from a modern perspective vs a work written at the time these values were the norm.
While I ponder that myself, does this sound like a legitimate entry for Regularly Scheduled Evil? Or, if not, is there another trope that's applicable? I'm not certain if the regular schedule is too regular, being nightly rather than larger gaps.
- The city of Sleepless Domain is protected from monster attacks by a barrier covering it. However, between roughly 10 pm and 2 am every night, the barrier goes down to reset. In that interval, monsters can enter the city and potentially break through the weaker "inner barrier" that protects the buildings and their inhabitants. It is also during this time that the comic's Magical Girl Warriors do their nightly rounds to defend the city from those monsters.
edited 21st Apr '18 8:36:48 PM by sgamer82
- Yeah, this is a continuation of the Values Dissonance to Deliberate Values Dissonance sorting that I started a while ago. ... Given that, I'd be on the right in moving it, but giving people a chance to comment. ... Will move tomorrow, if nothing changes.
Repost, 'cause I added things:
ValuesDissonance.Literature. These is actually Deliberate Values Dissonance, right, since its modern writing, about the past or counterparts of historical cultures?
- Brown's Pine Ridge Stories: Published in May 2014, one chapter ("A Tragedy and A Miracle"), that takes place in Telfair County, Georgia in 1937, mentions in passing that an elderly woman had to take care of her grandchild... while at work... as a Cafeteria lady at an Elementary School. The lack of any sort of adequate Day Care for young children of working parents would likely strike some readers as odd at the mildest and at worst, especially working single mothers, as appalling.
EDIT:
- Jahnna N. Malcom's Jewel Princess series, published 1997-1999, had a couple of cases. In the first book, Roxanne, the future princess of the Red Mountains, runs away before the coronation because she doesn't want to be a princess—she'll have to move to a place she either hasn't been to or doesn't know well, she prefers running around and climbing trees to remaining indoors, her future kingdom is a desert mountain range unlike her sisters', which are all much more widely populated and idyllic, and she'll have to rule over her people, despite not wanting to rule and having no real experience at it. After running away, she makes some allies, foils an attempt to put an impostor on her throne, and returns to the coronation willingly. OK, fine. Except that Roxanne is about eleven (though she doesn't act like it), and the idea of giving a pre-teen that kind of responsibility, especially since she wasn't prepared for it, is a ridiculous idea.
- Another example comes from the third book. In it Emily, the princess of Greenwood, is a notorious practical joker who has played tricks on everyone while refusing to see that most other people don't think that they're funny. Eventually, when a prank is played on a subject that seriously harms him, the people of Greenwood believe that Emily played it, and one of them says that he's going to talk to her father (the King) about her, because 'when a princess starts harming her own people, it's time for her to stop being a princess'. Again, fine, but like Roxanne, Emily is eleven, and expecting an eleven year old to be responsible and mature on that level is simply ridiculous—not to mention that there was no proof that it was Emily, and she had several witnesses that would have given her an alibi and testified to her non-violent nature if it had come to it.
And ValuesDissonance.Live Action TV:
- Merlin inverts it. By modern standards, Uther is a ruthless tyrant. By general medieval standards, he would be considered rather benevolent.
edited 21st Apr '18 8:36:11 PM by Malady
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
No, the other one.
I don't think Regularly Scheduled Evil fits, since the threat is constant, just that the defence against it goes down regularly.
For "A Tragedy and A Miracle", that's not a situation that never happens in the modern world. It also extrapolates a single instance to a complete lack of day care for children, which is especially egregious when there's no value put to the instance in the first place. It either needs more context, or be deleted.
The first Jewel Princess example is Deliberate Values Dissonance. It seems to have a lot of details not pertaining to the values related to the trope, though.
For the second, I don't think it's ridiculous to expect children to not seriously harm other people. It's not about being responsible and mature "on that level". It's about being a decent human being, which isn't the exclusive nature of adults. Whether it actually was her is also not about any dissonance, since even in modern stories it's common for children to not be believed when they claim innocense. There is no example as written.
I don't think the last one is an example as written. It doesn't say anything about how he's actually portrayed. However he would've been viewed by medieval people is irrelevant, since the show is modern.
Deliberate Values Dissonance is about accurately reflecting the state things for the time period portrayed.
Check out my fanfiction!
- So, gonna move the first Jewel Princesses example, cut the second, and leave that Merlin example.
Okay?
Regularly Scheduled Evil needs a known length of time? Or is just predictable?
- Demon comes every few years
vs.
- Demon comes every 5 years
Some examples are lacking specific intervals. Will mark with ZCE later.
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
Yeah, I got that impression from how the trope was described. Wonder if there's something that does fit
I'd have to question the Emily example, which seems predicated on the idea that an eleven year old cannot possess the kind of maturity to know that pranks can be wrong and that pranks that harm people unacceptable.
I certainly knew that when I was eleven, and I know plenty of eleven year olds today who understand that. In fact, I'd be rather shocked if an eleven year old didn't know hurting people is bad.
Edit: I should have read the posts above mine first. I agree the example should be cut.
The Merlin/Uther example is a Zero Context Example as written. It tells us his behaviour is benevolent for the standards of the day and ruthless by modern standards, but it neither explains what standards are being referenced or what behaviour of Uther's is being discussed.
edited 22nd Apr '18 1:04:47 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Goku Black
Okay from Usagi Yojimbo. We have this:
- Values Dissonance: Characters who would rather die than be dishonored make decisions that can seem strange to the reader. Similarly, characters who renounce that honor and start a new life as monks are making a tremendous personal sacrifice that, to modern eyes, doesn't seem all that significant.
- As tolerant as Usagi can be, he's still amazed in "The Hidden" upon learning that the Christians worship an executed criminal (albeit an innocent one).
- The treatment of the lower classes is bad to modern eyes and rather extreme even by the standards of the rest of the world in the 16th century.
This comic came out in 1986. Is this an example ?
edited 23rd Apr '18 12:38:47 AM by miraculous
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
It's a comic set in medieval Japan. The writeup is correct, but for Deliberate Values Dissonance.
Goku Black
Thanks ill move it there.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
I want to put this on the Domestic Abuse page, but I want to make sure that this entry is good enough.
Reviving Ophelia provides a textbook example of an abusive relationship. Elizabeth has a seemingly normal relationship with a boy named Mark. Throughout the movie, he stalks her, tells her what to wear, calls and texts her frequently when she isn't with him, blames her when he hits her, and gives her gifts after hurting her. She stays with him because she believes that he loves her and defends him when her family finds out the truth. This changes when she realizes the toxicity of the relationship and breaks up with him, leading to him threatening suicide initially and then threatening to kill her. He even tries to pull a Murder-Suicide in the climax because he can't bear to live without her.
edited 24th Apr '18 1:19:34 AM by kataangluvr
Logic Girl
Does implied sex count as G-Rated Sex? I've seen some people cite an alleged example of G-Rated Sex, when two characters go offscreen or something and it's implied that they had sex, but I thought the trope was for characters who have a way of reproducing without having normal sex, but in these so-called examples it's implied that they had sex in the usual way.
For every low there is a high.
That would be misuse. Characters go offscreen for sex is Sexy Discretion Shot.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Google "big ears"
Hello, i wanted to ask if this example of the God of War (PS4) is an example of Follow the Leader
- Follow the Leader: While having the game set in Norse Mythology was one of the many ideas tossed around all the way back in God of War III, there's no doubt that the Norse Pantheon's popularity in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is what gave the devs enough confidence to go forward with it. Which probably explains why Atreus turns out to be Loki of all people as well as using Thor as a Sequel Hook.
To me it feels shoehorned, since the idea has been tossed around since way before the MCU was a thing.
Uni cat
Goku Black
Mistake.
edited 24th Apr '18 8:28:29 AM by miraculous
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Goku Black
Also and sorry for Double-posting.
This on The character page of Ryo Asuka of Devilman Crybaby.
Satanic Archetype: Being Satan himself, Ryo is a perfect example of the trope. While he initially appeared to help humanity, his true goal is to actually eradicate them; the demons see him as their leader; he's a Fallen Angel who was banished to Earth for attempting to usurp God, his angel form is beautiful and glowing with light — which completely contradicts his true nature; and even though he's a close friend of Akira, he's the one who made Akira a Devilman in the first place and is arguably responsible for all the tragedies Akira suffers throughout the story.
Thing is I thought Satanic Archetype was for Satan Like beings like Zamasu, Belial and Yuuki Terumi. Where there meant as a parallel to Lucifer/Satan but arent actually Satan/Lucifer.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Is this just added example on OvershadowedByControversy.LiveActionFilms being used correctly?:
- Star Wars Episode VII: The Last Jedi is better known for accusations of Character Derailment of Luke Skywalker, Supreme Leader Snoke being an Anti-Climax Boss, and Finn and Rose's subplot being a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment.
I know The Last Jedi is a highly divisive film, but from my understanding, Overshadowed by Controversy is for when a work or creator is only remembered for controversy they caused and/or were involved in, not for works that caused a Broken Base. And Luke Skywalker's characterization in the film, whether you like it or not, is not Character Derailment since there is a clear explanation for his change in characterization. This just seems like an excuse to complain about the film.
edited 24th Apr '18 3:05:43 PM by ADrago
It has to be an out of universe controversy.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
On My Hero Academia - Other Heroes, Ragdoll has The Omniscient applied to her:
- The Omniscient: Her Quirk allows her to track up to 100 people at a time and know both their locations and weak points.
That doesn't quite sound like omniscience to me, since she can only track 100 people.
Definitely cut it.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
I got rid of it but replaced it with Sensor Character since that seems more fitting. Would you say it would also qualify as Psychic Radar?
I was taking a Wiki Walk when a pothole caught my eye... From Littlest Pet Shop: A World of Our Own:
The six main pets this show focuses on consist of:
- Roxie McTerrier, a Boston Terrier who is The Leader of her friends.
- Jade Catkin, Roxie's roommate in Paw-Tucket, a bombay cat who usually goes in Sarcasm Mode.
- Trip Hamston, a hamster who fancies himself a daredevil and at times, a rapper.
- Quincy Goatee, a pigmy goat who is easily frightened.
- Edie Von Keet, a parakeet who longs to be an actress, inspired by her owner.
- Bev Gilturtle, a box turtle who wants to entertain the other pets.
This has a pothole to Five-Man Band. Can a Five-Man Band have six characters? I didn't think it could.
There can be when there is a Sixth Ranger, but there arent any soooo...
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
From Square Peg Round Trope:
- First, it HAS to be five people, though just as not every team will qualify, this doesn't mean that every quintet will either. The Sixth Ranger, The Mentor, Team Pet, Tagalong Kid and other such tropes are not part of this ensemble and are usually indicative of shoehorning.
So it can't include six people. This is definitely an incorrect pothole.
edited 24th Apr '18 10:31:28 PM by Mickoonsley19
Its not deliberate, since it accurately reflects the state things were back then.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.