Ultimately, what is the point of these tropes? They are not motiffs, they're usually not intended by the authors, they're extremely subjective and arbitarily defined (for example, what truly seperates a boar from a hornet? Depending on the work, self sacrificing masses can be made very ambiguously un/successful), they rarely have any thematic significance besides the standard character tropes, and they propagate animal stereotypes that are no way a reflection of reality. It's like the Character A Lignment thing, only that it has even less basis.
Puʻu ʻŌʻōThese are character types that frequently occur within stories. Here, they are symbolized with animals; whether the animals themselves fit doesn't really matter. Character Alignments are also tropes in stories where they occur.
edited 2nd Jul '13 5:29:43 AM by SeptimusHeap
Puʻu ʻŌʻōBecause they were trying to tag two pages. Your new tag makes no sense at all.
Huh? It's definitely tropeworthy. What animal a character is themed around is often a shorthand for their abilities and personality. And how is it subjective? 9/10 the animal comparisons are really jammed down the throat of the audience. EDIT: Did I miss something? Because if he's complaining about Dying Like Animals then I'm entirely on his side. Always hated that page.
edited 2nd Jul '13 5:37:22 AM by Larkmarn
Motifs is mentioned in the second sentence. Also mentioned are animal stereotypes, also referenced in Animal Motifs. Dying Like Animals and Fighting For Survival are Narrative Devices that are actually not really related to animals.
edited 2nd Jul '13 5:38:57 AM by MikuruFan
Okay... so let me get this straight. OP wanted this as Dying Like Animals and Fighting For Survival... so it got changed to Animal Motifs? Because he used the word motif and was talking about animal stereotypes... that doesn't make sense to me, if that's what happened.
Puʻu ʻŌʻō@Larkmarn: Yes. I personally do not see a problem at all here or on the other pages.
edited 2nd Jul '13 5:50:31 AM by MikuruFan
Okay... wow, this was confusing. Animal Motifs seems irrelevant. I've always hated the animal archetypes on Dying Like Animals. They're such minute distinctions, and the names are pretty obtuse as well ("Oh, yes. Butterflies are party people. How perfectly clear, and not at all contrary to any other existent tropes"). The fact that you need the analysis page open just to read the article is not a good thing. I already didn't like Dying Like Animals the first time I had seen it. Seems like the number of distinctions has grown in the interim. Fighting For Survival I have less of an issue with, since it's less dependent on its tortured animal metaphors. In of itself, it has a basic trope and the animals seems less like the definition of the trope, and more along the lines of clarification.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:04:06 AM by Larkmarn
Yeah, that sounds like a bad Type Labels Are Not Examples problem.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:03:57 AM by MikuruFan
Puʻu ʻŌʻōFirst off, the old old thread. Second, the topic are the Dying and Fighting pages. The current location of the thread tag is wrong.
Sorry. These tropes were new to me and I didn't see the animal parts to them until I read the examples. Which means that it may be just as confusing for another user who sees the page. The best choice, in my opinion, would be to split these pages and nuke the animal theme naming.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:13:16 AM by MikuruFan
Okay... so it seems like the last topic's solution was to move the descriptions to analysis since no one liked them. Except that didn't stop people from continuing to use the metaphors (or at least, no one bothered to remove them). All it seemed to do was require a second page open in order to read the example list. Maybe just have a simplified list in the description itself, maybe just the folders from the analysis page with a bit of explanation? EDIT: Hmmm, that's an interesting point. Here I thought they were obtuse to someone who knew that the pages were about the overwrought and nonsensical animal distinctions... but to someone who doesn't it's even more confusing.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:12:46 AM by Larkmarn
Puʻu ʻŌʻōA simplified list in the description works for me.
I will say this, as bad as the metaphors in the Dying Like Animals list are, the Fighting For Survival ones are even definitely worse. I mean, aside from the fact that pretty much NONE of them have established archetypes, thus are worthless at at a glance, a lot of them don't... really seem to be "fighting" at all. Plus, "crows" are on Dying Like Animals, but "ravens" are on Fighting For Survival? That's almost as confusing as the fact that "Snake" is apparently Fighting For Survival, and "Snakes" are Dying Like Animals. Really, these stupid lists should never have been made in the first place.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:24:00 AM by Larkmarn
Here's an interesting point brought up by the OP of the previous thread.
The fact that each animal links to a trope of its own demonstrates, to me anyway, that the description currently isn't actually talking about the core trope, but rather is serving as a really complicated index to a bunch of things that sort of relate to the trope.Maybe this and Fighting For Survival really are simple tropes dragged on by unnecessary type labels, and there may not need to be a split at all.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:31:03 AM by MikuruFan
Yeah, most of those are about as forced as the metaphors themselves and not terribly descriptive. While Bats is a negative thing in this regard, in general Muggles can't really be blamed for falling for The Masquerade (to an extent, of course). Oh, another one that's on both lists: "Wolves" and "wolf." And they're hilariously unrelated.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:42:35 AM by Larkmarn
This kind of stuff is why I don't like type labels. On a side note, Dying Like Animals may need a rename if we remove the type labels. There was some discussion on the other thread about the name being preexisting, though if we remove them, the page would have neither to do with death nor animals.
Yeah, I think it'd need a rename, unless the simplification is reduced down to, say, "Predators, Prey, Scavengers, " or some other broader animal metaphor.
Puʻu ʻŌʻōOk, while I do not like a split (for workability reasons), a rename and de-typing could work.
Now that I think about it, both tropes are fairly small and don't need splits. Having type labels on these pages is analogous to having type labels on Driven to Suicide based on which method of suicide they used. That doesn't mean that each method should get its own page. The pages should be defined by the core definitions: commoners are The Load to the hero/commoners help them.
edited 2nd Jul '13 6:56:32 AM by MikuruFan
I'm not sure what we'd split them to. Okay, the gist of Dying like animals boils down to these basic groups: those who ignore the problem for one reason or another, those that accidentally make things worse, sycophants, those that try to take advantage of the situation.
Oh, god, these pages used to be terrible. But we moved the worst part of them (assigning labels that fall into an arbitrary category ["animals"] that doesn't appear as a motif in the works themselves) to the analysis page. What's left isn't particularly useful, but it isn't as severely harmful as what came before.
Well, the name is still The Artifact from that, and we're still left with a ton of examples that make no sense because they're now referring directly to type labels that aren't on the page anymore.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.