Complaining: Flanderization

I think that is too extreme, by that definition very few characters would qualify as most have a handful of quirks that are exaggerated, and not just one. Like Fonzie being The Ace means that his talents at Percussive Maintenance and womanizing are exaggerated to overwhelm his previous distant and aloof personality. It's the fact that specific quirks take the place of more "realistic" character traits that makes the trope, not "character is defined by ONE quirk." I think the page image illustrates that about as perfectly as any image could. And if anything that logic would diminish the trope even further as a negative thing, only creating Flat Characters.

For example Al from Home Improvement was basically a shy, low key, silently suffering, Deadpan Snarking but competent sidekick as a contrast to Tim's over-the-top macho ego. Over the course of the series he became more socially awkward and even more sarcastic, in addition to gaining "Momma's Boy" traits that heightened his personality contrast to Tim. But instead of making him a flat character, exaggerating those traits made the banter between Al and Tim even better. Knowing the production history of the show, Al was not meant to be a regular character (a fill in for when another actor became available, who never did) and in the first season he didn't have much of a presence AT ALL because he was so quiet. So in this case Flanderization worked to his advantage by making him a relevant character in the show, instead of wallpaper.

If we can get more examples like that, the trope would be in good condition.

edited 14th May '14 6:44:10 PM by KJMackley

But... that doesn't even sound like an example from what I understand of the trope.

Then again, perhaps that just underscores how complex this might get.

So again, part of the Bad Writing associated with this is if a flanderized character is also a flat character.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

That example just sounds like Character Development. Do we really not have a solid idea of what Flanderization actually means?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The only difference between character development and flanderization is whether or not there is a story-based explanation for the changes in behavior. Character Development implies that the experiences the person went through changed them and they gain new skills/quirks or discarded old habits/quirks. Flanderization is the exaggeration of a personality trait that was far more subdued in the past, which may be explained by the story but is usually just being written differently as their character gets written into more stories. I guess you could call it Doylist versus Watsonian.

edited 14th May '14 7:50:42 PM by KJMackley

Not according to the definition its not. According to the official definition, its a single trait which overwhlems all other traits, not a few traits getting exagerated, not the overall character getting exagerated, only one trait becoming the characters only trait.

Thats why there is so much misuse, because people assume what you did, when in fact it is actually a very narrow definition. The definition does not match the common perception.

Except in cases where the term has an established meaning outside of our wiki, we usually match ourselves to troper expectations.

Outside meaning forces us to match public expectations.

edited 15th May '14 10:56:52 AM by crazysamaritan

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Who started the term, though? Is it another TVT neologism or did it exist before we named it?

This also wouldn't be the first time that our definition has defied common usage because common usage became too broad.

edited 15th May '14 11:12:18 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Where does it say anywhere in the description that there can only be one and any more is not that trope? That's an assumption on the other end. The vast majority of characters typically have more than one trait or quirk. Flanders himself can maybe have his quirks put under an umbrella term like his religious devotion, but that manifests in his squeaky clean language, being a devoted father, etc.

The truth is something we've already discussed, the trope is trying to simplify the changing portrayal of a character over the course of years. The misuse is that people are commenting on the fact they are different, not on any particular trait being exaggerated over time. If they acquire a quirk that was non-existent in earlier stories, that's just Characterization Marches On.

What you're saying is what I was also saying: the common use of the term has become so broad as to not be a trope at all. So we're stuck between killing it and losing all those inbounds (unacceptable) or redefining it in a way not consistent with how people are using it in general.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Or maybe use it to define its various meanings such like the Mary Sue page does.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

"The act of taking a single (often minor) action or trait of a character within a work and exaggerating it more and more over time until it completely consumes the character"

BUT WAIT, THERES MORE

While the first part of the difinition says its a single trait, the sample cases in the definition are a mix of correct, incorrect and wtf

From the samples in the page:

• A Nice Guy but with human flaws becomes a Purity Sue.
  • That's correct, a single trait overwhelms the other traits
• A character is intelligent, but in realistic levels, later he/she becomes extremely intelligent, being comparable to many famous scientists, or even exaggerated to the point of being able to build wondrous gadgets at his house.
  • Most common misuse. This doesnt say anything about intellegence becoming the characters only trait, only that the trait becomes exaggerated.
• A competent villain that came close to defeating the hero, somehow becomes more and more incompetent and gets defeated easily all the time, without the justification of the hero becoming stronger
  • That's Villain Decay, and misuse: their character makes a compete 180, thats not Flanderization
• The creators discover a character is not well liked by the fans, and thus decides to hurt and humiliate the character in increasingly horrifying ways, despite the fact that the character had really done nothing wrong in recent episodes.
  • What??? that has nothing to do with flanderization!

Overall, some of the definition has the "single trait" thing, and some follows the common perception that any trait becoming more exaggerated over time is flanderization

EDIT: Also, I don't think "character traits get exaggerated over time" is too broad of a definition, it's quite simple IMO

edited 15th May '14 11:45:29 AM by PistolsAtDawn

Yeah, but it's too vague to be a trope.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I can see it as a supertrope however, and perhaps various ways this can come about.

Again, it doesn't say it is ONLY one. In this case you are enlarging the significance of a single word to drastically reinterpret the trope. Remove that single word and the description is exactly the same. Regardless we still run into the problem of what does "one trait" entail? ONLY one trait or an umbrella trait that has "mini-traits" underneath? The quality of the examples is already up for debate so quoting them does nothing.

I honestly think if we do a massive clean-up just eliminating generic "Character is different" examples it would more or less fix the trope. A google search shows that the term is on Urban Dictionary, for what that's worth. And there is some significant off-site references to it in various forums.

I'm not dissagreeing with you about the trope, but I admit confusion as to how "single" doesn't mean "only one". Is there some other defnition of "single" Im missing? Your point is valid, tho

Also, the examples I pointed out arent from the works pages: they're the sample situations from the definition itself. They are supposed to be there to clarify the definition but they are terrible

Oh, and most of the off-tvtropes uses ive seen use the tvtropes definition, down to the phrasing, which implies tvtropes came up with the word, or at least that it is mostly known through tvtropes

I agree with you

EDIT: now I wonder what the first tropes here were. The Wayback machine goes back to 2005 but i dont know when tvtropes actually started

edited 15th May '14 12:55:54 PM by PistolsAtDawn

That still means there is some spread of the word outside of TV Tropes. That is definitely a consideration with any modifications to the trope. It's also one of the oldest tropes on the site, right up there with Xanatos Gambit.

But like I said, "The act of taking a single trait (often minor)..." is not really different from "The act of taking a trait (often minor)..." as far as the meaning of the sentence is concerned. I can't think of a character who is defined by ONE SOLITARY TRAIT. So it's hard for me to imagine the core intention of the trope is the person becomes just one trait (and no more), but that it is meant to single out specific traits and not make vague commentary on how someone was written broader. Which is, ironically, the problem. It's not an overabundance of traits but completely different traits that are being put down.

bump

problem: Flanderization is misused

noted misuse:

• any character developement at all, exaplined or otherwise
• exageration of multiple character traits (current defenition requires only one trait)
• used for fanfic and derivitive works, definition requires it to be within the same work

Also:

• the defenition is not clear, it contradicts itself
• the picture contradicts the defenition

EDIT:

Oh, and as far as "Flanderization" being used in conversation:

That was "flanderization" being used as a synonym for "exagerated," in a discussion on the Complete Monster cleanup thread. That's a quote from Fighteer, by the way.

I see it used like that a lot, but i figured id use that example since it proves mods use it that way too.

edited 29th May '14 8:46:03 AM by PistolsAtDawn

Except this is the single most common way I see this term used off site:

"Man, I like the fanfiction by that one author, I just wish she didn't always Flanderize [Character A] in to a [exaggerated version of canonical Character A's trait]."

edited 3rd Jun '14 8:41:02 PM by Sackett

I think that's misuse, since it's not a gradual process (the part that also implies that the official writers must be involved).

Is it a requirement of the trope that it be a gradual process? Because that seems unnecessary to me. I can easily imagine flanderization happening in a single step (for example, between a TV series and a spin-off movie.)

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

"The act of taking a single (often minor) action or trait of a character within a work and exaggerating it more and more over time until it completely consumes the character. Most always, the trait/action becomes completely outlandish and it becomes their defining characteristic."

By its definition, Flanderization must be gradual. This rules out fanfiction. The place for that is Canon Defilement or Character Derailment.

Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.

So as long as the fanfic doesn't gradually change the character starting from a canon-like version.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I really don't like that, because Character Derailment is a lot broader than exaggerating an existing trait.

Still, I seem to be in a majority here, and it's not really that important anyway.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird