Misused: Adorkable

Total posts: [178]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
51 Noaqiyeum10th Apr 2013 08:16:14 PM from the October Country , Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The it-thingy
I think we can define 'endearingly awkward' in a way that doesn't rely on in-universe reference and clean other examples. Pretty Boy isn't an audience reaction, after all.
Anyone who looks dangerous is dangerous.

Anyone who doesn't look dangerous is dangerous and sneaky.
Requiring perfectly clear evidence is fine. We can't be too strict on that however or we'll barely have any examples left.

edited 10th Apr '13 8:17:14 PM by Arha

Cut Zero Context Examples

The main problem I have seeing Adorkable everywhere is that there's two definitions of 'dork' going on. The Endearingly Awkward definition, and the has 'Dorky' interests (Geeks, Nerds, HollywoodNerd, TV Genius)

Two different character types in my mind. There are some people that are totally well adjusted but in one scene they read a comicbook or mention that they're fans of Star Wars and are immediately labeled Adorkable. There are other people who struggle with social interactions but it makes them seem sympathetic and they're also Adorkable.

...and then there's also the third type which is just by casting / character design / overall artstyle people think that they're aesthetically adorable (different from being sympathetic as a character trait), so doing just one thing that hints at either of the two dork defintions above will get them this label.

edited 11th Apr '13 10:19:48 AM by acrobox

54 Noaqiyeum11th Apr 2013 11:52:19 AM from the October Country , Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The it-thingy
The first case sounds like One of Us.
Anyone who looks dangerous is dangerous.

Anyone who doesn't look dangerous is dangerous and sneaky.
We also have a Nerds Are Sexy page.
... Which people, last I saw, use constantly as an Audience Reaction even though it's not.
Earlier, we openly let people use it as an audience reaction, but we then restricted it to in-universe. That seems an example of how this site no longer wants people to describe how they personally find character types attractive.
58 MsCC9312th Apr 2013 04:47:08 PM from In your dreams <3 , Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
Welcome to Me
Again, I disagree with making it In-Universe, because being "Adorkable" is already self-explanatory for most characters, but I do believe the real life examples should be purged. We should edit the description and add a note to tropers not to add fan-reactions and not to misuse the trope.

Making it In-Universe is too much of a stretch because a character being acknowledged as "adorkable" is rarely seen in most shows. Removing the fan-reaction examples would be a better idea. Notice how misused examples of "Too Dumb to Live" are getting purged now? We should do the same thing with Adorkable.

edited 12th Apr '13 4:51:06 PM by MsCC93

Which examples are neither fan reactions nor in-universe?
Not a bug!
In theory, that would be examples where the author intended the character to be perceived as adorable due to "dorkiness" by the fans.

My issue with that, is that without direct Word of God to back it up, I don't see a way to write those examples so that they don't look like a fan reaction to someone unfamiliar with the work or the author. (Remember, the point of a well-written example is that you can believe the example is valid without having read/watched/played the work in question.)
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
61 SeptimusHeap13th Apr 2013 01:54:06 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
"that they don't look like a fan reaction"

For reference, lacking "acknowledged In-Universe" or "Word of God" doesn't make something a fan reaction. "Some say" or similar terms can do.
Let me see if I get it right what is meant here, or if I understand it correctly. To be adorkable in-universe doesn't mean the word has to be used, nor it is necessary for other characters to state out loud that they find the adorkable one "dorky and cute" or something like that. But the context of the example should make it clear. For instance, if the character behaves a bit awkward in company, but people find it nice. In visual media, they would perhaps smile at them. Yes?
Basically correct, In-Universe can be a tricky term to get right. It's meant to be that a trope typically thought of as a fan reaction is used within the context of the story itself (ie someone is considered disliked and annoying in the team, making them The Scrappy), it specifically hinges on it being an audience reaction to begin with.

Now I think a lot of time Adorkable leads to characters responding to them in a The Woobie In-Universe sort of way (aw, they're so clumsy and awkward I just want to hug them), but it is ultimately a character type and not a fan reaction.
With this trope, I imagined in-universe to be what we did to tropes like Amazonian Beauty - the character must fulfill objective criteria (noticeably muscular in that case and awkward in this one) and must resultantly be portrayed as attractive. The trope doesn't have to be discussed or invoked, but it must exist independent of Troper Lust.

edited 13th Apr '13 1:08:48 PM by AmyGdala

So what needs to be done with this exactly?

The crowner says what we agreed on here as well: the biggest problem is Zero-Context Example. I think we might start the clean-up, and comment out (or even delete?) entries without context.

I must say I don't much like Adorkable.Real Life sub-page. Some of them might be justified, but some entries sound like projecting the editors' personality on their favourite celebrity.
"Make in-universe" is +7 (ratio: 2.75), though the crowner is calculating its stats wrongly.
68 SeptimusHeap23rd Apr 2013 04:04:44 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
That crowner was the first one to break. It was counting wrong votes and I would not trust it.
I am in the process of rewriting the examples and removing fan reactions on the western animation page.
[up][up] Should we create a new one?
I had a look at the Live Action TV examples and tried to add context, but sadly, I'm not familiar with most of them.

I have one doubtful wick which I think might be shoehorning or projecting:
  • Simon from Firefly most definitely qualifies. The guy strikes out so many times you just wanna hug him.

I don't know. I see Simon as a Hospital Hottie. He's not that quirky, is he? If anyone from Firefly should be adorkable, I'd say Kaylee fits better, but I'm not entirely sure about her.

edited 25th Apr '13 7:12:24 AM by XFllo

All right, made a new crowner here.
73 AnotherDuck9th May 2013 03:23:53 PM from Stockholm , Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
[up][up]Kaylee is more of a nerd than a dork. Simon is awkward with women (or at least with Kaylee). I think he fits better.
Check out my fanfiction!
I don't think Simon or Kaylee count. Simon romantically striking out doesn't make him a dork, he's just a proper gentleman, and Kaylee's cute and smart but she's not socially awkward at all. Willow from Buffy, on the other hand, is smart but insecure. She's nice but she doesn't seem to think she deserves friends (in the beginning).
[up][up] But does being awkward with one woman make him adorkable? If I recall correctly, there is no in-universe acknowledgement of this. Only when Zoey tells him that he can't talk to anyone, which I take she means he still has troubles dealing with the crew who are not from his social circles and outside of his comfort zone.

I'd very much like to axe him.

Page Action: Adorkable 2
9th May '13 7:47:18 AM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
Adorkable is frequently used for fetish fuel entries in which contributors describe their personal attraction to characters regardless of how the character is portrayed.

Total posts: 178
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8