[009]
VVK
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The old quote and a number of the examples are about someone who \\\'\\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\"). Saying that this is not a ManBehindTheMan doesn\\\'t seem to capture all the nuances.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. (Edit: Actually, Backstory Big Bad would be better.) I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted. Well, I suppose it\\\'s slightly ambiguous if you think about \\\"isn\\\'t causing the conflict of the \\\'\\\'story\\\'\\\',\\\" but I don\\\'t think it can be sensible disambiguated more than one way.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak, which is the real point.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. (Edit: Actually, Backstory Big Bad would be better.) I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted. Well, I suppose it\\\'s slightly ambiguous if you think about \\\"isn\\\'t causing the conflict of the \\\'\\\'story\\\'\\\',\\\" but I don\\\'t think it can be sensible disambiguated more than one way.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak, which is the real point.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The old quote and a number of the examples are about someone who \\\'\\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\"). Saying that this is not a ManBehindTheMan doesn\\\'t seem to capture all the nuances.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted. Well, I suppose it\\\'s slightly ambiguous if you think about \\\"isn\\\'t causing the conflict of the \\\'\\\'story\\\'\\\',\\\" but I don\\\'t think it can be sensible disambiguated more than one way.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak, which is the real point.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted. Well, I suppose it\\\'s slightly ambiguous if you think about \\\"isn\\\'t causing the conflict of the \\\'\\\'story\\\'\\\',\\\" but I don\\\'t think it can be sensible disambiguated more than one way.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak, which is the real point.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The old quote and a number of the examples are about someone who \\\'\\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\"). Saying that this is not a ManBehindTheMan doesn\\\'t seem to capture all the nuances.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak, which is the real point.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak, which is the real point.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The old quote and a number of the examples are about someone who \\\'\\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\"). Saying that this is not a ManBehindTheMan doesn\\\'t seem to capture all the nuances.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The quote and a number of the examples are about someone who \\\'\\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\"). Saying that this is not a ManBehindTheMan doesn\\\'t seem to capture all the nuances.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The quote and a number of the examples are about someone who is behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\"). Saying that this is not a ManBehindTheMan doesn\\\'t seem to capture all the nuances.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The quote and a number of the examples are about someone who is behind the conflict even more so than the active Big Bads but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\").
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The quote and a number of the examples are about someone who is behind the conflict but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\").
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
And I think the Lovecraft quote\\\'s wordiness serves to emphasize just how much BIGGER, so to speak.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. Well. I\'ve noticed there\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \
to:
Yes. Well. I\\\'ve noticed there\\\'s a missing trope here. What the quote was illustrating was something like \\\"Retired Big Bad\\\". The BiggerBad is supposed to be someone who\\\'s the most powerful force of evil and just is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' behind the conflict. The quote and a number of the examples are about someone who is behind the conflict but is no longer active. The latter is still a SubTrope of BigBad, I guess, and it\\\'s definitely not what the definition says this is about, although some parts of the description are ambiguous in this respect (like the \\\"test whether this character could be replaced with an impersonal force\\\").
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
Someone should just make the new trope for the second trope, which I\\\'m mentally calling RetiredBigBad now. I would if I had the time.
But for this particular discussion, no, the previous quote did not illustrate the concept. My argument for that in the first post (and repeated here) has not been refuted.
