Tropes Are Not Bad: to what extent?

This question came up in my mind after reading a TRS thread in which someone supported a trope name that cast the trope in a negative light specifically and precisely because the name cast the trope in a negative light. To this poster, the trope was simply a negative thing, and thought the name should reflect that.

At first, I thought this was wrong, but then again, we do have stuff like Adaptation Decay... How hard and fast is Tropes Are Not Bad?

Each and every trope is a tool and even the most negative tropes out there can be invoked, lampshaded, conversed over, enforced, reconstructed, etc in a way that it does not have a detrimental effect on the product but may, in fact, have a positive effect. That doesn't mean that the majority of the time it isn't associated with Bad Writing.

It's a gamble, we want good names that avoid the perception that we only complain about stuff. But sometimes finding a neutral name still evokes some sarcasm that the best you could find was a neutral name. And some tropes like Dull Surprise thrive off the snark involved, and would otherwise die out if it had a different (ie blander) name.

Is that actually a good thing, though?

Adaptation Decay is not inherently negative. The "decay" refers to elements of the original getting lost, but it doesn't mean the adaptation is necessarily any worse for it. People may well like the changes. Fans of the original might have a They Changed It, Now It Sucks! reaction to it but that's their subjective opinion.

Adaptation Decay isn't a real trope to begin with. That elements of an original are changed or lost in an adaptation is just trivia, and the degree to which this is bad (as "decay" implies) is an Audience Reaction.

Dull Surprise isn't a true trope either. It was originally only about drawn characters in animation and boiled down to "drawing emotions is hard". Which isn't a storytelling tool. Now that it's been broadened to include live actors, it's just a complainy Audience Reaction.

edited 5th Aug '14 12:09:53 PM by LordGro

So what does this mean for my situation in my OP: someone arguing, "oh, this trope is, or should be, negative, so it's not only okay to give it a name that reflects negativity, but desirable"?

We should not encourage negativity.

@Leaper: Why don't you tell us about which YKTTW you are speaking?

This discussion of FullHouseMusic:

"Yes, it may not be a completely neutral term but the trope is about having a stock musical cue to punctuate the big sappy scenes."

"I also prefer Sappy Music Cue. "Sappy" is mildly derogatory where "sentimental" is not, and IMO that is a better tone."

"Sometimes you go with the name that is most useful for the trope, and while any trope can be used positively there are many tropes that inherently have a negative connotation and you can't get around it. For some tropes I cannot think of a name that is accurate AND neutral, like Dull Surprise.

Some tropes are naturally positive while some tropes are naturally negative. Since this trope is about using a stock musical cue to highlight the big, sappy, sentimental Golden Moments, it attracts a lot of cynicism."

Since I'm being quoted...

That is in reference to how we choose a trope name. Simply put, is Idiot Ball, Idiot Plot, Manic Pixie Dream Girl, any of the Informed Attribute tropes, any of the "-ification" and "-ization" tropes, etc really neutral names? Or do they carry some degree of judgement, however slight, to the quality of how the trope is often used? Note that most of those were not coined by this site and are tropes that have its roots in writing criticism. In the case of MPDG, we actually made the trope itself far more neutral than how the rest of the world uses it.

We also do not want to be giving wanton praise to a trope either, for it encourages a similar kind of misuse and disruptive tone to the wiki. The original proposed name for Meta Casting was "Casting Perfection" simply because I couldn't think of a better name at the time of writing the OP. The argument in that quote is that "sappy music cue" is slightly negative, but "sentimental music cue" can also be interpreted as negative as well. It's more than just a regular music cue, one that has been lampshaded by some shows like Scrubs, so it's a trope that inherently inspires sarcasm and thus sarcastic names.

In summation, each trope and trope name needs to be addressed on its own accord and not dismissed based on the simple quoting of guidelines. Most trope names could be used in dialogue, so does that count as "sounding like dialogue."

edited 6th Aug '14 8:11:24 PM by KJMackley

In that particular case, I don't think sappy encourages notably more negativity than sentimental. The negative aspect lies more in whether you think the concept in itself is a good or bad one, which in this case is trying to invoke certain feelings through music cues.

"Sappy" is a perfectly good word. It could be considered negative by people who don't like sappy things, but so could everything else.

I disagree - I think "sappy" does more often carry a negative connotation than "sentimental" does.

Might want to head over to the actual rename thread to discuss that.

I am firmly of the opinion that tropes are all how the writers make of them. I was there when we started the move towards Tropes Are Tools rather than the strict Tropes Are Not Bad page, with Tropes Are Not Good existing by itself for a short time. I think there is still a mentality that tropes are either neutral or bad, but that is likely not to change anytime soon.

The primary issue here is that I think some people are afraid of acknowledging that the use of a certain trope is connected with Bad Writing. Admitting that a trope can be a cause of or a result of Bad Writing doesn't make it Bad Writing in and of itself. The same goes for tropes and "Good Writing," so we shouldn't be that afraid of a trope giving off a particular vibe from its name and just focus on a name that will make it flourish as part of the wiki mindset.

Funny enough, I had a bit of Fridge Brilliance with The Lego Movie the other day, where I though it started off very bland and trite and took most of the movie to start actually becoming pretty good. Then I realized the big twist of the movie actually gives it a reason why it becomes better because the storyteller is becoming a better writer.