On Informed Flaws and Attributes

Does this trope apply to characters intrducing themselves to one another?

Let's say character A meets character B and introduces himself/herself. During the course of getting to know each other, character A casually mentions that he/she likes basketball while character B says he/she is terrible at it. Saying stuff you're good or bad at seems like a nomal part of the getting-to-know-you process, but basketball, nor any other kind of sport is mentioned for the remainder of the story. Does being good/bad at basketball then count as an informed flaw/attribute?

Only if basketball is relevant to the rest of the story in some way and the character demonstrates no meaningful handicap. Otherwise it's just narrative filigree; it has no real significance.

edited 8th May '15 6:02:17 PM by Fighteer

You mean use basketball as a way of showing a more important flaw?

No. It's only an informed flaw or attribute if it shows up elsewhere in the story and what we, (the audience) has been told is the case isn't shown to be the case. If basketball never enters the story again we have no way of knowing whether either character was telling the truth.

Exactly. To be "informed", the attribute in question must not be evident in the character's actions when it reasonably ought to.

If we're told that a character has a bad back, but he dances the macarena without visible discomfort, then his disability is an Informed Attribute. If we are told that he can sing like an angel, but we only ever hear him doing terrible karaoke, then his singing voice is an Informed Attribute.

To reiterate: an Informed Attribute is something we're told about a character that turns out not to have any relevance in a situation when it logically should.

edited 8th May '15 9:29:34 PM by Fighteer

Basically, we're told a character has an attribute, but it doesn't seem to be true in practice. It's about a dissonance between what we're told and what we're shown.

I'd be inclined to agree on that, but the description of Informed Attribute does not. There is no "in a situation when it logically should" -qualifier, its just telling something and not showing it. Based on that description, the basketball example would count.

Perhaps the description needs a bit of work?

As the example is presented, no, it's small talk. It has no significance to the audience or the story. It's not any trope.

edited 9th May '15 5:57:13 AM by Madrugada

The description does contain a "in a situation when it logically should" -qualifier, in the second paragraph:

Think of a situation where the thing can show its true colors, think of a way that this situation can naturally arise out of the plot, think of a believable way for the thing to act and finally show the way it is...

Yes, but in the context of "this is what writers should do." The next paragraph clearly says not doing that is the trope, no exception mentioned about whether such a situation should logically come up.

Not "saying something has an attribute that isn't shown when it logically should," but "saying something has an attribute that isn't shown, period."

edited 10th May '15 4:32:06 AM by DiamondWeapon

It isn't separate. Those are the two components.

If Alice is shown to be a terrible basketball player, but the audience is never told she is a good one, then that isn't the trope.

If the audience is told that Alice is a good basketball player, but the audience is never shown that she's terrible, then that isn't the trope.

Both components must be present

"If the audience is told that Alice is a good basketball player, but the audience is never shown that she's terrible, then that isn't the trope."

Perhaps. But that's not what the description says. It says quite clearly that telling but not showing is the trope.

Even more so Laconic.Informed Attribute: "The audience is told about a property of some object or character but is never shown it."

It seems like it could use an improved description. We have a thread for that.