Needs Help: Creators Pest

Regarding Ferot's points right above:

• The Codex Equus entry editorializes on behalf of the fanwork author a little too much, but in terms of the spirit of the trope, it counts even without the bashing: this is a character they'd prefer to not work with due to personal distaste, but feel personally obligated to include, resulting in them retooling or just writing around them as a result. OC or not OC, this sounds correct.
• The Conversion Bureau entry also kind of meanders a bit too much into backstage drama to vaguely lead into the point, but the principle of it is still the same, and as covered, it is valid. But whether or not it matters if it was an OC or not... no, it doesn't? Authors dislike working with a character, I'm not sure why the character being derivative or not would be a dealbreaker in this.
• Regarding The Last Jedi, no, it's not really "bashing" — the director just simply wasn't a fan of the story he was suggested to inform regarding the characters he felt were actually interesting and worth making more of the plot's focus. In other words, he would rather not include him but felt the need to still include and work around him rather than completely excise him without explanation.

What exactly is "bashing" in this context supposed to be? While I am wary about the overuse of editorializing from tropers complaining on behalf of the authors and their personal distaste, but I'd say that creators are entitled to their opinions on the subjects they're working with, and there's definitely a way to cover that author-work animosity without complaining by proxy.

In terms of Creator's Pest being "functionally identical" to Creator Backlash without "bashing", I'd disagree. Characters are a much more transient concept than individual works a creator is behind. Again, see something like superhero comics where characters are passed between writing teams all the time with varying levels of respect and quality; I would definitely argue there is a difference in animosity a creator has between the work as a whole (the art they drew, the script they wrote, the music they scored, etc.) and that of a character that may not even be theirs.

I'm all for including fanworks as part of the definition in Creator's Pest, but I don't think the "bashing" present here has to do with something about the trope or its definitions being fundamentally unsound, they just have to be cleaned up and rewritten to be less inflammatory and more civil in what they're covering.

tbh, I'm still confused as to what exactly was the problem regarding this trope that warranted TRS-ing, because it seems the misuse of this trope — either editorializing too much on behalf of creators or focusing on the burial process an author takes for a character instead of focusing on why the author dislikes them — is a minority situation.

Edited by number9robotic on Feb 27th 2024 at 11:28:15 AM

I would say the issue in regards to fan works is redundancy with Revenge Fic, so if we want to include fanfics, we should add a note saying not to add Revenge Fic examples.

I agree with Master N that there is a substantial difference between "creator comes to dislike their own creation" and "creator dislikes a preexisting character in the work they're writing for". (I also don't think we need a fanworks/non-fanworks split.)

I also mentioned Yomu Mishima earlier: as noted, he dislikes the Little Sister Heroine trope, so little sisters in his works tend to be antagonists. And that came back to bite him with Trapped in a Dating Sim: The World of Otome Games is Tough for Mobs when the little sister character, Marie Fou Lafan, ended up becoming so popular with his readers on Shousetsuka ni Narou that she won a poll for which secondary character should get a Spin-Off (Trapped in a Dating Sim: Otome Games Are Tough For Us, Too!).

She's his own creation and he doesn't go out of his way to make her unsympathetic (she pulls a Heel–Face Turn in volume 3), but she's still a product of the author's Pet-Peeve Trope.

I mean, I don't see a massive overlap between Creator's Pest and Revenge Fic to begin with — the latter is a very specific type of retribution (as in, burying a disliked character constitutes the point of the whole work) formed as a result of the animosity that informs Creator's Pest that doesn't even show up much in the wick check. It's not that big a concern, and again, can be addressed with simple cleanup.

erm, then what exactly is being suggested here? That there's a difference to how Creator's Pest can manifest... but it should be kept as is anyway? Because that's been the trajectory since the start of this thread —again, I'm not sure what was even the problem that warranted this being in the TRS.

Edited by number9robotic on Feb 27th 2024 at 1:08:22 AM

On the "preexisting character" question: I'd say a writer disliking (or disliking working with) a character they didn't create but assumed control over would still fall under the trope, or at least ought to. The argument for restricting it to author-made characters is that it's more notable for a creator to dislike the characters they've created, as we expect the inverse by default. But how is a creator disliking a character that isn't theirs but they have authorial control over not notable? The crux of both (and this trope) is "I don't like working with this character", either because they dislike the character themselves or dislike the process of working with them. "Creator dislikes working with their own characters" is notable, of course, but how is "creator dislikes working with a character they assumed control over" not? And the difference between the two is minute enough that I can't see separating them as a viable option.

Worth noting the description already begins with "maybe that character is born out/modified because of an Executive Meddling", which suggests that the creator does not have to created the character themselves. And the description later states that the author may "give [the character] Character Derailment or Adaptation Personality Change into something more their liking", which seems to say that adaptations count. That would mean this example from the "bashing or "fixing" the character" folder on the wick check is valid under the current definition:

• Trivia.Transformers Revenge Of The Fallen: Michael Bay hated Arcee and not only killed her off, he openly announced she would die an unceremonious death four months before the film’s release with a smile on his face.

(And I'll side with number9 here and say that I still have no idea what "bashing" warrants here. No examples brought up so far seem particularly negative; just slanted at worst. And such isn't even a widespread issue with or something unique to this trope.)

I would also add in reply to the "notability" argument that we have an actual policy called There Is No Such Thing as Notability.

...Which is about works, not examples. A work can be notable, but that doesn't mean everything surrounding it is.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone is debating about the broader "didn't create the character" stuff. It's specifically for fanworks that there seems to be an actual conflict, as fan authors are completely in control of their product and can choose which characters they incorporate in the way professional creators cannot.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 27th 2024 at 2:52:55 PM

"notability" also wasn't mentioned in the thread. "notable" in the conversation was referring if something is tropeworthy (triviaworthy) as Trivia.

Edited by Amonimus on Feb 27th 2024 at 10:53:10 PM

I think it's noteworthy if a fanfic writer hates a character from a work they're writing for, especially if said character plays a major role in the original story. Say someone writes a Harry Potter story and doesn't include Hermione. That's a noticeable absence from the story and it would help to know the writer's feelings towards the character to understand why they made that creative choice.

But that's not Creator's Pest. The fanfic writer cannot even be said to be writing a character they hate, since they aren't.

I don't see why not.

Because... they aren't being a creator over that character if they excluded that character. They aren't a pest — they're just not in the story.

Ah, right. Thought you've meant broader.

Edited by Amonimus on Feb 28th 2024 at 8:13:20 PM

I agree that the absence of a character doesn't tell us anything without Word of God to add to it. We've cut "tropes" that were based on the absence of something (like Stray Shots Strike Nothing, Nobody Over 50 Is Gay, and No Pronunciation Guide) for being meaningless.

However we define this should be based on characters who are present in the work.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Feb 29th 2024 at 5:03:52 AM

Yeah, just not using a canon character (like me with Janeway in my Star Trek Online fics: I leave her out even when I address Star Trek: Voyager-related material) is not this Trivium, and Creator's Pest needs Word of God to be valid.

Edited by StarSword on Feb 29th 2024 at 11:54:00 AM

Any further thoughts, including by op? (Ferot Dreadnaught) I feel like the discussions happening about a potential action are still waiting on a clarification as to what exactly is the problem here that needed to be addressed, namely what exactly is "bashing/fixing" supposed to mean in the original writeup, because it feels like there's been some misunderstandings going around over what the trope actually is and means.

Edited by number9robotic on Mar 4th 2024 at 12:52:40 PM

The problem was that the argument for banning non-OC character in fanworks (which I otherwise agree with), not the characters creator means bashing the character they don't like rather than this, also applies to many non-fanworks which don't confirm they had the creative restrictions (not free to change/remove characters they don't like but inherited from prior writers) that we've disqualified the fanwork examples over.

I created this TRS hoping to address this discrepancy by coming up with a use/rule/definition for Creator's Pest that could avoid said fanwork bashing without the Double Standard between fan and licensed works. (It was agreed the Codex Equis example would be valid and non-bashing if not for the non-OC ban, correct?)

I though defining/redefining Pest to only being disliking working with the character as opposed to disliking them in source material would fix that as removing the bashing in a way that would be consistent for fan and licensed works.

My impression from this thread is Pest doesn't have enough misuse under the current definition to warrant redefining over this issue, correct?

I'm still confused, partly because, no offense, the grammar of your post is confusing.

• What is a "non-OC character in fanworks"?

• What is "this"?
• What exactly is the matter are you claiming in saying we ever disqualified fanworks over?

• But by your own wick check, "bashing" is only 14% of your sample group, and even after reading the wick check, I'm still not clear of what you mean by "bashing" to begin with, and I don't really understand what was the criteria you used to categorize the examples put as such.

• Erm, the definition of Creator's Pest already says "Note this does not apply to creators disliking characters from other works thus bashing or portraying negatively in their work, as they do like their work version of them [...] it only applies to their Original Character or characters they're "forced" to include (such as by co-creators, audience demand, or not being able to write around) despite not liking them." It's already within your proposed definition.

Edited by number9robotic on Mar 5th 2024 at 9:00:28 AM

1. "This" means the current use of Creator's Pest as opposed to fanworks bashing characters they don't like which various cleanups deemed don't count.

2. "Bashing" refers to enjoying portraying them negatively (making them Butt Monkeys, demonizing them).

3. I added that part of the definition in response to others argeeing and other cleanups precedent for removing such (it was previously informal). Those cleanups were open to and/or advised discussing the matter further for a more official consensus, thus this TRS.

My concern is that

• There are examples of licensed works (fewer than I feared at the 14%) that bash characters the creator doesn't like despite not being the one who created them, without confirming the Creativity Leash on their handling which is what's supposed to exempt licensed works from the restrictions we have on fanwork Pest examples.
• There are fanwork examples that seem otherwise valid like the Codex Equis example (don't like writing about the character rather than bashing them, their writing them out/reducing their role is the same as many licensed work Pest examples) cut under the no non-OC rule. I believe the non-OC rule would be unnecessary if about disliking working with the character in their work as opposed to disliking them in the source material.

We could say the trope is (should be) "work creator has a public statement disliking working on a character", regardless if it's their character and regardless of their opinion on a character themself, as we have tropes for other cases.

If about disliking working with the character as opposed to disliking them in the source material what about this?

• Indiana Jones: Like a lot of fans, Dial of Destiny director James Mangold disliked Mutt Williams, Indy's son introduced in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, enough to kill kill him off between films.

Is this not an example because it hate in their source material as opposed to working with them which they avoided? Or is it an example because they took the steps to avoid working with them?

That sounds like Dropped a Bridge on Him, which I think could count.

At least it doesn't sound like Creator's Pest, or what has been proposed.

I think that's Armed with Canon: the new creative team decided to kill the character offscreen rather than use him.