I'm more concerned about you taking the definition of trope into your own hands than how you deal with subjective tropes, actually.
edited 28th Sep '10 5:57:40 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Well, if you think it is something other than my definition, you are invited to state what you think it is.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Sure.
Storytelling is, as an art, one that's long been steeped in subjectivity. It has it's roots in being told to a crowd, in being related to those who might ooh and aah. The various ways a trope is received is just as important as the ways they are portrayed, and have a direct impact on the way subsequent tropes are given, which in turn incur a response, which in turn impact the way the tropes are given.
Consider the case of tropes like Complete Monster or Magnificent Bastard: that is, an aspect of a character that isn't easily defined and , yet is still an effect that, with the right storyteller, can be cultivated and invoked within an audience - the trope is subjective, but the way it is received caters that subjectivity - the feeling that one gets from the villain, even if it is different per person, is still an essential part of that characters'... well, character.
Not only that, but subjectivity is directly tied with the works' influence and cultural spread.
This is especially true with characters that aren't limited to one work, for example, characters in mythology, or characters that change in the course of their works - a character whose actions cause Narm may undergo a change in characterization as a result.
In the face of all that, considering them non-tropes merely because they're tough to deal with seems like undermining our intent, though maybe it's my definition - I consider tropes to include "all aspects of storytelling" (from failures to successes) rather than an intentionally made-to-be quantifiable characteristic.
Some subjective tropes are, granted, I think this is this (So Bad Its Horrible, for example), others are subjective concepts with objective effects / invocations or vice versa (Hell Is That Noise, for example).
While intentional or not, constant or not, and consistent or not, subjective tropes are still a trick of the trade, in nothing other than they help to define their objective counterparts - if the fact that they can be directly invoked doesn't already make them tropes by default. At the very least, subjective tropes are difficult to define as "is a trope" or "isn't a trope."
Added Note: On the subjective tropes list there are several which are only partially subjective as well - such as Alas, Poor Villain, which is an amalgam of several things, only one of which is subjective.
edited 28th Sep '10 6:15:11 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Writing a character to be a bastard or monster is a trope. Quibbling over whether they are magnificent or 'complete' is not.
I agree that whether or not a trope works as intended is not significant.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
^ But then the problem isn't the trope, it's the way people treat the page - the main problem I have is them being considered "not a trope."
I would honestly prefer them being perpetually locked than to see them considered nonentities.
edited 28th Sep '10 6:27:34 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Well, they aren't tropes. Sorry you disagree, but you haven't shifted the definition enough to incorporate them.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
What's your definition, then, O' Fastidious One?
edited 28th Sep '10 6:42:34 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Conventions used to tell stories.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Hmm... so, you're defining them specifically as the devices used to relate the stories, rather than the aspects of the stories themselves or the general concepts those devices are related from. I can understand that, even though I wholeheartedly disagree.
That still includes the deliberate invocation of a subjective concept, however.
edited 28th Sep '10 6:48:24 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Describe the 'deliberate invocation of a subjective concept,' please.
A writer asserting something out of their own prejudices is clearly a trope. Whether the reader agrees is not.
A character can be made with the intention of them being irritating or otherwise unlikable for the reader. That's a trope. The ways of making such a character unlikable (dog kicking, etc.) are tropes.
The fact that some portion of the readership is going to interpret that as is is done in Draco in Leather Pants is not.
We can say that Draco in Leather Pants is a recurrent theme in fandom and worth recording on that basis, but it is about the fandom, not the work.
edited 28th Sep '10 7:08:48 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Complete Monster is an easy one to do this on, but a deliberate invocation of Complete Monster: Claggart in Billy Budd.
Designated Protagonist Syndrome: When the protagonist is intended to be uninteresting compared to the rest of the cast, because the other characters are supposed to be the real interest. For example, Sandlot.
Deliberate use of Crowning Moment Of Awesome: An author specifically writing a scene intending it to be the character's crowning and most triumphant moment to outshine all others in the work. More common than you'd think.
Deliberate use of Refuge in Vulgarity: when a work intentionally relies on it's... well... vulgarity, and heavy crossing of the line to shield it from criticism - basically attempting to invoke the "it's just harmless nonsense, don't analyze it" bit with people in order to avoid people judging it on an upscale level.
Deliberate use of Meaningless Meaningful Words: when something is intended to sound intelligent/pretentiously powerful yet empty.
Ear Worm: Jingles.
Going down the subjective trope list to find examples, but it's hard to find a solid one to use, because a lot of them arguably aren't subjective in the first place, and plus our list of subjective tropes is a lot smaller than I thought.
Others still, like What Measure Is An X, are indicators of the artist/author/cultural/whatever ideals, and/or tropes based on stigmas that influence the fiction itself.
And several of them are effects that happen on fiction over a matter of time rather than what happens with fiction. Or analyses of fiction (which I'd agree aren't tropes).
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Diagonalizing The Matrix
All right, audience reactions are not tropes and tropes are not audience reactions, but you use tropes to aim for an audience reaction and audience reactions occur because of tropes. To consider either outside of the context of the other one would, IMO, not be a constructive approach.
Maybe we need another name for the audience reaction... Things. Then we won't get them mixed up and we'll have a less disparaging term for subjectives than "not a trope".
edited 28th Sep '10 7:33:37 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
Great. A term that could be used as a positive assertion would work. "This is an argenfargle. Please don't list it in a work's trope example list" would be a good banner.
The members of the argenfargle class would be natter-magnets. If an argument can be mustered about whether or not the thing is in the work, it is an argenfargle. If it is about how the work was received, it is an argenfargle.
edited 28th Sep '10 7:38:25 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Better. Can someone send a letter Webster and tell them we've invented a new word?
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
|Y| = |X| Add 5
A better term seems to be indicated. We'd get pretty tired of explaining what a complete neologism means. Anyway, "TV Tropes and Argenfargles" doesn't roll right off the tongue/.
edited 28th Sep '10 7:47:16 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
MLM of color
How about simply "This is a subjective trope, please do not place it on a work's main page or use the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment before adding."
I see the Awesomeness.
Anyway, "TV Tropes and Argenfargles" doesn't roll right off the tongueClearly you don't have enough tongues.
Fight smart, not fair.
^^ Because I feel there is a distinction between a subjective — in the sense we're using the word — and a trope. Best to duck all that and just use a different word.
Also, we know we cannot rely on people sticking to Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment about things that aren't necessarily flame bait, but will still trigger natter.
Actually, Natter Magnet is pretty direct-to-the-point.
Edit to add: It really works. We can use a magnet as the icon. Like this one
◊.
edited 28th Sep '10 8:44:07 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Zzzzzzzzzz
I think maybe this
If an argument can be mustered about whether or not the thing is in the work, it is an argenfargle.I just had a discussion with someone on the All Girls Want Bad Boys discussion page about whether Jim from Rebel Without A Cause really qualified as a Bad Boy or not. Their position was that he didn't, because he was always nice to Whatshername and he was lost and confused rather than deliberately rebellious. Going by the standard "if an argument can be mustered about whether or not it applies, it's not a trope", Bad Boy (or, as we call it, Troubled, but Cute) isn't a trope.
edited 28th Sep '10 9:01:29 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Indeed. In my experience, the presence of just about any trope in a work is arguable. For instance, Heroes Want Redheads - 'actually, it's a sort of strawberry blonde'. Killed Off for Real - 'wasn't his death kind of ambiguous?'. Big Bad - 'actually, I think this guy was a more significant antagonist'.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Because I feel there is a distinction between a subjective — in the sense we're using the word — and a trope. Best to duck all that and just use a different word.Such as, for instance, a "subjective"? You sort of just came up with that right there, and it seems natural enough.
edited 28th Sep '10 10:35:44 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
Well, we need some kind of guideline, I suppose. "We don't want to hear your pointless, endless, pedantic, pain in the ass squabbles." Is a little too on the nose and not quite friendly.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
MLM of color
"Subjective Trope - Please add examples and discussion HERE and not the main work pages."
Crown Description:
Yes. Really. Because subjectives are, in fact, almost always at the root of natter. The only other things that are natter bait are arguments about facts, which can be fixed by zapping the argument and installing the correct fact.
edited 28th Sep '10 5:56:34 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty