Apologies - I'm viewing this as a renaming, which it isn't. So let's get down to business.
Do you disagree with my reasoning?
On what grounds?
Let's examine your originally stated reasoning.
1. If it is merely a subversion of another trope, why does it merit its own name?
There is no exact opposite to this trope. Let's examine the cited definitions briefly.
As written on the page itself:
He doesn't get what he deserves. Instead, he thumbs his nose at the hero, dons his baby harp seal cape made from baby harp seals he personally clubbed himself and dashes off into the night scot-free.
As succinctly put in this thread:
[[I]]it is an aversion of any kind of karma at all.
As succinctly put in the laconic entry
A villain who gets off scot-free, just because.
So if this is to be considered a subversion, what, exactly, is it subverting - that the villain to receive their comeuppance in some sense? If I'm not mistaken, attempting to trope that would be a clear example of People Sit on Chairs
. If you're dealing with extremely appropriate
comeuppance, that gets into Laser-Guided Karma
territory, but as far as I can tell the 'straight' form of the trope you claim to be 'subverting' does not exist.
2. Since it subverts the unrealistic space whale aesop
...a subversion of Space Whale Aesop
has nothing to do with the above discussion. A Space Whale Aesop
is An Aesop
with extremely unlikely consequences in the face of unusual actions. The concept of a villain escaping punishment has nothing to do with story morals except possibly in the sense of Broken Aesop
3. A good number of the examples actually are not subversions of laser guided karma
As established above, this has no direct relation to Laser-Guided Karma
not having any "karma" at all[...]is the norm
In the sense that "karma" is being used here, you're asserting that villains nigh-universally escape any just punishment in fiction. Common sense suggests otherwise.
Because the trope as is is basically the lack of a space whale aesop
See above argument relating to Space Whale Aesop
I have listed several reasons[...]why it's not well-used.
As far as I can tell, none of your arguments relate to specific examples listed in the article not actually being examples of the trope as defined. Can you show otherwise?
edited 19th Dec '10 1:14:52 AM by sgrunt
This space for rent. Cost: your soul.