Complaining: Sturgeons Tropes

Reading the description and the examples, I guess that this is supposed to be about the examples of Pet Peeve Tropes that have Trope Enjoyment Loopholes. The penultimate paragraph is "Compare Pet-Peeve Trope and Trope Enjoyment Loophole.", with the last paragraph being "Contrast Favorite Trope.". Beyond this, it is virtually impossible define 90% of examples of a trope as crap without looking at the reaction of the audience.

As result, the bigger portion of the listed tropes concentrates in the negatives examples- in some cases, does not mention the existence of positive examples.

My suggested solution to this, as both Pet-Peeve Trope and Trope Enjoyment Loophole are YMMV and without examples, is turn Sturgeons Tropes into an YMMV without examples.

Opinions?

This index has been bothering me for a while. Opening.

At least each trope in that lists mention some good arguments as to why they're there...

Uhh so this is just a 'Trope people tend to hate or think are bad'? uhh uhh Chop Chop? or label it as YMMC and/or remove it as an index.

edited 9th Nov '14 3:07:21 PM by Memers

Well, even if it's about reactions to tropes, this page in itself doesn't need to be subjective. It's essentially about statistics.

If there isn't around 90% bad examples or more on a trope, it doesn't belong here on the basis that the trope isn't used badly as much as this page claims. Of course, that also assumes we have a fair representation of the tropes as used in all of fiction on the trope pages, which isn't something to take for granted.

One problem about this index is that it's redundant with Bad Writing Index.

Long ago, Sturgeons Tropes serve as Not-so-Bad-Writing Index, what belong here are "very hard to pull well", while tropes in Bad Writing is alway a sign of bad writing, unless it's parody. So when someone add not-so-bad tropes in Bad Wrting Index, it got transfer here.

But now Bad Writing Index also cover tropes that's just very hard to pull well as well, that make Sturgeons Tropes obsoleted.

edited 9th Nov '14 10:04:07 PM by Kuruni

If that's the case, doesn't that mean that the Bad Writing Index is being misused, rather than that Sturgeons Tropes is redundant?

I think it means Bad Writing Index got expanded, rather than is being misused.

Well, was the Bad Writing Index redefined to allow for a wider definition? In that case, you could argue that it swallowed Sturgeons Tropes and that the latter has become redundant.

{{5}}:As mentioned in Home Page, Audience Reactions are considered YMMV. And The Scrappy and Base Breaker are examples of Audience Reactions that are dependent of statistics.

{{6}}: To be frank, i guess that the only times where a trope reduces the quality of a work 100% of the time is when the reduction of the quality is part of the description of the trope(ex:Strawman Has a Point reduces the quality of a strawman argument and Broken Aesop reduces the quality of An Aesop)

edited 22nd Nov '14 10:40:20 AM by MagBas

Bump.

Concur with post #4 above. Cut.

Well, 2 votes to cut by far.

edited 4th Dec '14 4:48:12 AM by MagBas

I think it still has a place, but that it may be hard to salvage due to the misuse.

Somebody compared it to the Bad Writing Index and called it the Not So Bad Writing Index, and I think that's where the root of the problem is. Sturgeons Tropes are (IMO) not "Bad Writing, but less so than tropes on the Bad Writing Index", but rather tropes that are easy to misuse, or use in a bad way. But if they are just seen as The Same But Less as the tropes on the Bad Writing Index, then it's no wonder the two indices seem to overlap.

Some tropes in Sturgeons Tropes aren't even about bad writing, more of a "trope that is people's pet peeve 90% of the time".

So Bad Writing Index was supposed to be "objective tropes where Tropes Are Not Bad does not apply by definition" while this is "Tropes Are Not Bad but these very rarely aren't"?

Yes, something like that. The Bad Writing Index is a list of writing tropes that are (almost) universally agreed to be exceptions to Tropes Are Not Bad. Sturgeons Tropes are not bad in themselves, but tend to be used in bad ways, or just press people's buttons.

The problem is of course that this is rather subjective. It's perhaps a natural outcome that many people see Sturgeons Tropes as a The Same But Less version of the Bad Writing Index.

The way I'd be inclined to use these pages myself is: if I think a trope is just bad storytelling, period, it goes on the Bad Writing Index. If I think the trope is just OK when done right, but is suffering from rampant misuse, it goes on Sturgeons Tropes.

edited 5th Dec '14 1:47:44 AM by GnomeTitan

The issue I have with this index (since it's the one under repair) is that it reflects a value judgment on the tropes. It's effectively a YMMV index.

I agree. An odd thing is that the index is YMMV but most of the tropes on it aren't (i.e. the fact whether a trope belongs here or not is subjective, even if the trope is objective). Do we have any precedent for that?

I agree with cutting it as long as it doesn't result in these tropes getting added to the Bad Writing Index.

Bump.

My opinion reflects

Well, Gallium and memers agree with cutting, supergod and crazysamaritan agree with cutting but are against merging, Gnome Titan and Septimus Heap agree with turning this ymmv.

And I'm in favor on not doing anything. :P

But at least turning it into ymmv is okay.

Crowner?