So I apparently didn't know the definition of this trope until just now, as I see it almost exclusively used as "someone who is called a rebel, but in a very safe way." However, it's actually about a work that portrays itself as ground-breaking, but actually only treads safe ground. The wicks... aren't good. First ten wicks:
- Acceptable Lifestyle Targets: Wrong (safe rebel)
- Activist Fundamentalist Antics: Wrong (ditto)
- Appropriated Appellation: Wrong (safe rebel
- Bad Butt: Wrong in the description (safe rebel)
- Creator/Banksy: Wrong, though at least in a different way. It has an invoked tag, but it's about a rebel still being in control, rather than a groundbreaking work being safe.
- Be Yourself: Wrong, but I'm not sure how. It's certainly not referring to a work.
- Bob Roberts: Wrong (safe rebel)
- Bourgeois Bohemian: In the description, it says compare Rule-Abiding Rebel. So technically undefined, but obviously wrong.
- YMMV/Bratz: Wrong (safe rebel).
- Brokeback Mountain: Correct!
edited 6th Nov '13 3:43:32 PM by Larkmarn
I did not even realize this was about works. Needs cleanup at minimum.
The trope name is rather ambiguous anyhow. At first glance, it does sound like it's referring to a character rather than a work
This definitely looks like a job for Trope Transplant Man. I also seem to recall that we have the current definition, or something very similar to it, under another name.
the last paragraph seems to be talking about characters: "The precise reaction to Rule Abiding Rebel characters will often depend on their age relative to the rest of the cast. If they are older RAR's, they're liable to be the victim of Seinfeld Is Unfunny; if they're younger people or Johnny-come-latelys, they'll instead face the Pretender Diss. Or they might just be the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything. Arguably the most humiliating outcome is when the purported rebels are actually embraced by the very bluenoses they were trying to defy, maybe even being declared The Moral Substitute to the real subversive stuff!" So that implies it is about characters who are intended to be rebelious but don't come across as such. That might already be covered by Badbutt. Either way, I don't like that paragraph.
edited 28th Nov '13 3:40:17 AM by pistolsatdawn
That was probably added by someone after the main description, someone who didn't understand the definition.
Hamster-chan is coming to town!
I'm inclined to suggest this one is renamed, right now the name offers the suggestion of a character who aims to rebel but doesn't, or something similar. I can't honestly think of what exactly this should be called instead, though - something like 'Groundbreaking Aim, Rule Following Work', although that doesn't capture the brevity that's needed of it, to me.
Onii-chan! Hamster-chan is coming to town!
But Not Too Subversive? (runs)
Still just awesome like that
Partial Subversion Or maybe Indecisive Deconstruction? EDIT: Which we have already. Hm.
edited 2nd Dec '13 11:01:18 PM by Odd1
No, not subversion. Subversive! They are different.
Still just awesome like that
I was joking.
Actually, the wiki term could cause legitimate confusion there (even though the suggestion itself was semi-joking, being a groan-inducing snowclone and all).
"But Not Too Rebelious"? Also nobody minds if I re-write that last paragraph to fit the actual definition, right? The one that talks about characters?
By the way, do we have a trope about self-proclaimed rebel characters who never do anything rebellious?
I think we need to do a transplant. Move this trope to Supposedly Rebellious Series or whatever, and redefine Rule-Abiding Rebel to how it's used—a character "rebels" in a non-rebellious fashion.
I think it works.
Shit I have to put up with for the sake of my country...
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
Any other name idea? Supposedly Rebellious Series is actually pretty damn good, I think.
A Wizard boy