Trope distinctions - do these make sense?

Having read Canonical List of Subtle Trope Distinctions, I noticed these weren't on it, but before they get added on I want to check these make sense.

—

Broad Strokes vs Loose Canon vs The Stations of the Canon

• Broad Strokes: The events or Story Arc did happen, just not every single detail or every plotline, some things differ from the source material.
• Loose Canon: It's of ambiguous continuity to the Series Franchise, not quite non-canon but not quite canon.
• The Stations of the Canon: There's events that have to happen in a plotline with regard to Canon, even in a Continuity Reboot

Comic-Book Time vs Webcomic Time vs Frozen in Time

• Comic-Book Time: The characters never age, even though the setting does.
• Webcomic Time: The work is published now, but it's taken 3 years to cover the period of 1994-1996 In-Universe within the Story Arc.
• Frozen in Time: It's The '90s, well, 1993, but needs to stay grounded in that era, or the story makes no sense at all.

Burger Fool vs Big Eater

• Burger Fool: The protagonist works at a fast-food joint and sells the burgers
• Big Eater: They eat many of the burgers sold there.

Please feel free to fix as appropriate; I'm not certain with these (and may not have time to add them for now due to Real Life issues).

edited 3rd Nov '17 2:50:11 PM by Merseyuser1

For Comic-Book Time / Frozen in Time / Webcomic Time, I'd like to suggest something from one of your previous threads, namely my comment on the distinctions.

• Comic-Book Time: When the setting starts in one era and moves forward in time similar to real-world time, but the characters don't age.
• Frozen in Time: When the setting and everything needs to be in a particular era in order for the work to make sense or be accepted by audiences.
• Webcomic Time: When the setting does not move forward in time like real-world time, and because of that the characters don't age.

edited 4th Nov '17 7:24:14 AM by WaterBlap

You know, given the genericness of the title, we could use a single thread for clarifying distinctions between tropes. God knows many of the cases I've asked about were resolved within such a short handful of posts that I felt creating a dedicated thread for each query was excessive.

So if nobody minds, here's my question: Is there any appreciable difference between I Just Want to Be Loved and Desperately Craves Affection? Because while the titles carry different implications, I can't really tell if that's true from the descriptions.

RE Broad Strokes vs Loose Canon vs The Stations of the Canon: Those seem fine to me.

edited 22nd Nov '17 4:38:39 AM by MarqFJA

Please note that the Canonical List of Subtle Trope Distinctions is where one should go as a primary source for this sort of inquiry. If you don't find what you're looking for there, then the forums are a good place to ask.

edited 22nd Nov '17 4:45:16 AM by Fighteer

Well, the tropes in my query don't appear to be included in that list.

Well, by their descriptions, I Just Want to Be Loved is a metafictional trope about stories intended to appeal to female audiences based on their desire to find a romantic connection. Desperately Craves Affection is a character trope about someone who has been starved of affection and now seeks it out obsessively.

They should be used very differently. If they aren't, it's almost certainly because the first trope has a non-indicative title.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of pages use I Just Want to Be Loved when they really ought to be Desperately Craves Affection. It doesn't help that I Just Want to Be Loved — and other I Just Want to Be/Have X tropes that are similarly metafictional, incidentally — are obvious snowclones of I Just Want to Be Normal and I Just Want to Be Special, both of which predate them by at least 2-3 years and are character tropes rather than metafictional ones.

PS: Would fixing the non-indicative name problem of the I Just Want to Be/Have X tropes be a job for TRS, or Long-term Projects?

edited 22nd Nov '17 10:23:07 AM by MarqFJA

We prefer not to start Projects topics for that sort of thing unless it's a major, long-term task like the various Badass tropes. As it stands, there has not been any sort of general consensus that the I Just Want To Be ... tropes are misnamed, so it would be better to take them to TRS. Honestly, I'd consider cutting the metafictional versions, as it's always so hard to keep them from attracting invalid examples.

Been reading Child Eater and Eats Babies... and I'm getting the feeling that there's not enough meaningful distinction between them to merit splitting them into two tropes. It might be just me missing something crucial, though. Thoughts?

There is a difference in characterization. Child Eater exists as a supernatural threat to keep children in line and eating children, like the witch in Hansel And Gretel. The Child Eater is a metaphor for real life dangers (disease, etc.).

In contrast, Eats Babies is for a Card-Carrying Villain who does it in order to establish how evil they are.

Child Eater also notes that it is a subtrope of Eats Babies. Unfortunately neither name includes any of the characterization that is involved.

Um, there's nothing inherently supernatural in Child Eater, from what I get from the description. It's just that it originated from ancient myths about child-eaters, and those usually but not always were supernatural monsters (however humanoid they looked); some were actually humans who simply developed a specific taste for children, while others were indeed nonhuman monsters but still weren't supernatural per se, just fictional.

And it can't be a subtrope of Eats Babies when the very line you're referencing says that only most rather than all examples of Child Eater qualify for Eats Babies... unless that line is wrong.

edited 1st May '18 4:10:41 PM by MarqFJA

What's the difference between Clothing Combat and Cloth Fu? They look practically the same to me. On second thought, I believe I figured it out: The former is for actual clothing and the latter is for pieces of cloth (including blankets and the like). Still, is that enough for separating them into two tropes? The way I've seen weaponized clothing executed, the clothing in question is treated practically the same way as a cloth would be.

edited 16th May '18 4:44:33 PM by MarqFJA

I think there's a significant enough difference between wearing your weapons, and using a soft material as a weapon.

I agree with that, but I don't see it being reflected in the example list. A cleanup may be in order.

What is the difference between Psychoactive Powers and Emotional Powers?

You know, I can't quite figure that out. Reading the description seems to place Psychoactive Powers as about mental stability and Emotional Powers as about powers from specific emotions, but the examples are all over the place.

For the record, the "Psychoactive" in Psychoactive Powers is a misnomer; it really should be "Psychoreactive'''" instead.

I also see shoehorning in the form of Heroic Resolve and delayed powers activation.

This question was raised four years ago on the discussion subpage without an answer.

Question; what is the difference between Comic-Book Limbo and Chuck Cunningham Syndrome?

I'm trying to figure out the difference between Child Soldier and Tyke Bomb. The best that I could come up with is this:

• Child Soldier is a character being (self-)trained to fight and (usually) kill as a child.
• Tyke Bomb is a character who has been raised since birth/creation or early infancy to be an unquestionably loyal minion to someone (usually a villain). They may also be a Child Soldier, but not always.

Am I getting the distinction right?

Well, as far as I can tell, the latter is typically permanent by way of being an actual Retcon that removes the character's existence from the work altogether, while the former is more similar to being Put on a Bus. I'm getting The Same, but More Specific vibes from Comic-Book Limbo, though.

Edited by MarqFJA on Nov 13th 2018 at 8:04:20 PM

You are correct in your distinction. The important part is that a Child Soldier isn't being trained for one specific mission per se, but is impressed into a military force at an age younger than one would normally think reasonable. A Tyke Bomb, by contrast, is raised, bred, indoctrinated, and/or brainwashed for one specific purpose, which is not necessarily military in nature. It is possible for these to overlap but they can be completely independent.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 13th 2018 at 12:11:32 PM

Does a Child Soldier have to be part of an actual military force? What if a freelance mercenary took in a child and trained them into becoming a merc themselves?

That'd fulfill the intent of the trope. Of course, you have to be careful here. Raising your "adopted" child to follow in your footsteps once they grow up is not the same thing as making them a child soldier; what matters is if you expressly intend to make them a combatant before they reach whatever standard for maturity would normally apply in that universe.

Whether it's a national military force, a rebel or pirate group, a mercenary outfit, a PMC, or whatever is not as important as that a child is forced into becoming a combatant. One also generally expects it to be systematic: involving significant numbers of children rather than one individual child, although the trope can still apply in the latter case.

Ender's Game is about child soldiers (albeit soldiers who lead, not fight themselves). Guardians of the Galaxy is not: Yondu doesn't make Quill fight in battles as a kid (as far as I know).

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 13th 2018 at 12:38:34 PM

What does separate Evil Running Good from Conspiracy Redemption?

From a quick read, Evil Running Good has a variety of possible motives/backgrounds for the villain running the heroic faction, from being just part of their Evil Plan to having made a genuine Heel–Face Turn. The villain may have infiltrated the group, or they may have been part of it from the very beginning; the point is that as far as anyone knows, they're Evil, and so it would be shocking to discover that they're the one in charge of the heroes.

Conspiracy Redemption, on the other hand, involves The Conspiracy being shown to be not really/wholly evil, and in fact has redeeming qualities — in other words, morally ambiguous at worst rather than the typical depiction of being outright villainous. It may take the form of a disconnect between the top leadership and the lower ranks, with the former usually being the ones who are abusing their power or having a hidden agenda that their subordinates would not stand for. (Prime example: Nerv from Neon Genesis Evangelion)

Alternatively, the entire group is on the same page, but are a Well-Intentioned Extremist who frequently clash with a more idealistic group of heroes that they consider to be naive at best and dangerously disruptive at worst. (Prime example: Hypnos from Digimon Tamers)

Edited by MarqFJA on Nov 13th 2018 at 4:00:50 PM