Actually, there are a whole rat's nest of problems, but mass trope misuse is, I believe, the biggest.
The last, recent trope repair shop discussion on this trope
came to the conclusion that the trope's description was pretty clear and that it was its own defined trope and not a duplicate of some other trope. Which is true. But that was never the problem.
The problem with the trope description is that it begins with an Example as a Thesis
describing a very
specific scenario, and then the rest of the description does nothing to say that the trope could play out at all differently. It was even stated in the discussion that the EAAT was too restricting, but in the end, they decided that having a clearly defined and workable trope wasn't important enough for them to "scrap such a nicely written introduction and just put a dictionary definition in its place."
Furthermore, because the description had "such a nicely written introduction," the tropers involved in the discussion didn't bother to check any of the examples (Sorry, one guy did, but he seems to have been largely ignored by everyone else). Thing is, barely any examples fit the overly narrow definition. I say "barely any" instead of "none" because some examples don't have enough context for me to be able to say for sure, and because there is just one
example concerning The Undertaker
that actually fits.
The last discussion differentiated this trope from You Can Barely Stand
- Game-Breaking Injury: An injury that shifts the tide of a battle, making winning much harder for the sufferer. Usually kicks in only after some time, and always is inflicted before the battle. *My additions, inserted to add to clarity, are in bold.
- You Can Barely Stand: They keep on fighting despite the incapacitation.
While the description makes the trope distinct from You Can Barely Stand
, the examples don't. Almost all of the examples are about people who carry on and win epically even after being significantly handicapped (some are injuries from before the battle, some are acquired during the battle). Some aren't even that. There's the vary, very rare example that actually follows the "An injury that shifts the tide of a battle
" definition, yet even those
don't follow the exact scenario from the description. Some other examples are about how in a fight, one character does something so devastating to another that the victim can no longer fight, sometimes even for good, which I believe is covered under Career-Ending Injury
. A number of examples also fit under Crippling the Competition
, where an opponent intentionally injures the character in question before a battle.
What Iím saying is that this trope needs some work: either way, unless we want to make this a duplicate of You Can Barely Stand
, a lot of examples need to be cut. The Example as a Thesis
needs to be removed completely, or else all
the examples save one will need to be cut (and that means no more trope, right? Minimum of three). My personal opinion, though many tropers may think this is a bit much, is that we should just cut the entire damn thing. The description is distinct, but it defines a trope that, judging from the examples, does not actually exist and is essentially only used as a duplicate for You Can Barely Stand
, Career-Ending Injury
, and Crippling the Competition
. Even if we clean up the description and the examples, it'll only get misused again and in a year, we'll be right back where we started.
edited 26th May '14 7:33:17 PM by Erivale