Laconic Description Improvement

Nerds Are Sexy says A character is a nerd and is sexy to other characters because of it. It doesn't even say what is meant by nerd.

The Laconic of Bald Women only says that it's "female without hair", which is technically true, but is way too broad and sounds chair-y. It's supposed to be an Expository Hairstyle where the woman's lack of hair symbolizes her power and transcendence over "feminine submissiveness"/

The laconic for Rules Lawyer is entirely composed of potholes, and honestly doesn't tell anything about the trope unless one is familiar with the laconics of those two potholed tropes.

Need good wording for https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Laconic/OffstageVillainy

Villains commit (or succeed) at their villainous acts _______________?

Fill in the blank? Or something different altogether?

"Villainous acts that the audience isn't shown, just told about"?

Laconic Spice Up the Subtitles is much more narrow than the trope's actual description

Fine...

Right now, the laconic for Face Death with Dignity is "A doomed character faces death with serenity, as opposed to kicking and screaming."

Unfortunately, this is the definition, with almost the same wording, of Obi-Wan Moment (and boy, do I have a problem with these two tropes put together already), and I'm having trouble putting together a succinct definition of FDWD that doesn't repeat the problem, partly because I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the definition.

Can anyone suggest anything?

Laconic.Ship Tease and Laconic.Will They Or Wont They appears to rely on each other to get its point across. It's like a circular description, really.

Is there are way to write the laconic on Hammerspace without relying on the link?

"Things coming out of nowhere when the story requires it"?

The laconic for Tomato in the Mirror glosses over an important qualifier of the trope (the character isn't just "not what they think they are," they're actually a fake or copy of what they thought they were). Is there a way to rewrite it and include that information?

Laconic.Order Versus Chaos reads

"Order vs Chaos."

That's it. Sinkhole/misuse of the title trope Exactly What It Says on the Tin into the phrase's memetic meaning, not explaining much. The thought to redefine it into "driving forces of conflict"-something withers in the face of the fact that the trope seems to have been nestled into Morality Tropes index. The useless verbose description is useless, I feel like cutting the Laconic and walking away to let thing marinate by itself. :| Not like I'm in any position to do such things.

edited 12th Mar '15 6:11:02 AM by NemuruMaeNi

I switched it to:

The concepts of "Order" (tradition, history, group cohesiveness) is opposed by the concepts of "Chaos" (independence, invention, randomness).

I don't think "a fake" is a needed portion, just that the character isn't aware of an important element about themselves. There's a joke about a blind black man that thought he was white, and when he found out that his white wife had married a black man, he divorced her.

edited 12th Mar '15 9:26:49 AM by crazysamaritan

I just suspended DRONN because his edits were all highly problematic and with poor capitalization, but I don't know enough about the subject of Laconic.Postmodernism to judge what is the better version.

Isn't Laconic.Blatant Lies just great? >_>

Someone must have thought it could help things. Well, to me it was a nail-in-the-coffin-lid wind down, I've decided to give up even thinking of a possible example, among other things.

edited 21st May '15 10:29:37 AM by SetsunasaNiWa

Would "Truths and facts" be a better laconic?

Nope, that still requires the pothole to explain the trope.

I've changed it to: "Lies so obvious they lack even a shred of plausibility. "

Where's a trope in that? >_<

If you have issues with whether something is trope-worthy or not, the place to deal with it is TRS, not this thread. If you decide to make a thread for it there, please make sure that you clearly and concisely state your objection and supporting reasons and evidence in the opening post.

I wonder whose of the mutual miniscule credits of trust is more just, between the two of us. Moving on, I guess.

It's not about "trust". It's about staying on topic.

You chose to proceed on supposition that your vis-a-vis is veering away from topic. Yet there was room for different interpretations. The point of my question was rather "is everything there is to this trope fit into this laconic?" Which would make a lousy weak question, because a likely response of typing "yes" would bring about a completely disproportionate satisfaction to people involved. And I'm even less expecting a brutally straight alternative "were you sure what you were doing, when composing the new version?" to be taken at face value (and answered verifiably) instead of it being treated as a mocking, trolling, demeaning bite. Therefore, my post was chosen to be what it was.

You did answer many of the inferred questions by doing what you've done, although with extra condemnation as I'd see it. Whether you're able to navigate the underlying choices differently — is a curious thing to have doubts about. Most people can't, so that leads to the idea behind the second post. It's all about trust.

Anyways, that may be a little tad bit too deep to follow, so on to scrutinize the new laconic. The word "even" is unneeded, the phrase doesn't state who lies and who can and/or must be deciding what is obvious and what is plausible. "Harry Potter: Harry is a girl." would be an example that nicely fits such laconic. There, my version of being on topic. In case of certain second thoughts, do ignore this post until I ring it through the not-a-troll certification process.

edited 22nd May '15 4:52:23 PM by SetsunasaNiWa

I think the Blu-Ray's laconic description could be a lot better. The current description may be accurate, but it doesn't say a thing about what the Blu-Ray actually is, instead using a horse-drawn carriage vs. cars metaphor to describe its place in the industry.

The end result is, without context, the current Laconic description could be describing any number of things. Furthermore, it's practically an insult, calling the Blu-Ray outdated and obsolete. And no matter how many people hold to that belief, it is still an opinion and not a fact. There's no need for such an insult.

I believe that instead, the Blu-Ray's Laconic description should simply describe what it is, namely, an optical disc format designed for storing High-Definition content. Just the facts; nothing more, nothing less.

Laconic.Questionable Consent is a fairly long laconic.

Not sure exactly how to phrase it, but something like, "Situations where it is uncertain consent is given, or where consent is given on shaky grounds."

edited 7th Jan '16 4:21:31 AM by AnotherDuck