Made it up to the God Is Evil example on the main page. If anyone else wishes to pick up from there or take on any of the other pages, please note here, so we don't cross-purpose each other.
Noted, Jamey. I'm working through the main page first so I don't get lost. I just gotten through Ironic Echo. Commented out several ZC Es — I've got the series on my iPad to refer to, but if I'm not sure off-the-top-of-my-head why the trope is supposed to apply, I'm commenting it out. Removed lots of natter.
I've been removing a lot of spoiler markup, too. Too much of what's been spoilered out is just not spoilers. I'm only counting something as a spoiler if it's treated as a major twist or reveal in the series itself — like who the Adversary really is. things like romances & who has kids are long-running parts of the series & not treated as any kind of big secret or reveal...with one or two very specific exceptions.
I'm hesitant to report any issues with editors from more than a year ago. Or does the length of time since the edit occurred matter?
Again, I truly appreciate your help, Jamey.
Edited by FranksGirl
Made it up to Let's Get Dangerous! on the main page. Removed entries that didn't fit, commented out ZC Es, added more context, the usual. There's way too many tropes that have been shoehorned in.
Fixed up to A Million Is a Statistic. What's making this slow going is me having to refer to the books to make sure an example is right, or that a trope actually fits.
quite a few tropes commented out due to ZCE. If anyone knows the context of the tropes/examples in question, please add it all in.
up through Multiple-Choice Past. Commented out several ZC Es, removed a couple tropes/examples that were shoehorned and whose examples were not the tropes in question (Mr. Exposition, The Mole)
Added context to the Killed To Uphold Masquerade trope, as the original entry was a zce.
removed Nice Character, Mean Actor: the example given was not about people playing the roles — the trope is specifically about actors & the roles they play in-universe. The example listed the actual characters, who are never portrayed as anything but mean.
removed Nice Job Breaking It, Hero: the example given not only had no context, but was about the *villain* of the tale, the Empire — the trope is specifically about the hero managing to foul things up.
Edited by FranksGirl
got through Nothing Is the Same Anymore. Removed a lot of natter & justifying edits & weaselly-worded entries, added context to a couple zces and commented out others. Removed tropes whose examples were NOT the trope at all — folks, please, read the actual trope page before adding an example that you think fits. There's been too many cases of "You keep using that trope, it does not mean what you think it means" on this page.
got through Polar Opposite Twins.
Commented out many, many ZC Es and removed tons of natter & weasel worded entries. Either something IS an example, or is an aversion/subversion/inversion, or not. If something scoots around the edges of a trope, it's either Playing with a Trope or an outright aversion.
With the ZC Es, it's not enough to simply list a character's name. You have to describe what makes them that particular trope, or how a situation fits a trope, so that the reader understands without needing to have read the work OR refer to the trope page. I've read Fables (though not the Jack spinoff), but not a complete geek about it; if I don't get what makes a trope valid, other readers won't either.
got through Proper Lady (and removed that). Snow White is not a "proper Victorian lady", given that she involves herself in war, curses, and is very capable of fighting to defend herself. Please read the trope; trope . Removing for shoehorn. If this trope does fit, there needs to be more context about why it fits, rather than "Snow follows the rule".
Also removed natter, commented out zces, and fixed indentations.
I just read the last issue and there are so many Aborted Arcs and rushed arcs I don't know where to begin. Bigby's seven deaths, Gepetto's army, Beast's death and his and Beauty's child... Plus there is that whole thing with Rose Red eating Hope because... I don't know why. Rose Red went crazy? And I'm worried that she let Hope be raped by her soldiers to cheer them up.
I can't be the only person who feels this way. I checked out this series because I heard everyone loves the characters, but I'm 15 issues in and I still don't like a single one of them. I don't empathize with their emotional experiences or sympathize when they get hurt, I feel like I'm watching robots pretend to be human. Later I checked out The Wolf Among Us, and fell in love with every single character from the moment I saw them, even the jerkasses felt all too human. What on Earth is wrong with me? It's not just the medium, I generally avoid video games while there are plenty of comics I love specifically because of the characters, but in Fables they feel hollow. Why don't I enjoy this comic when everyone else does?
As Above, So Below
- Protagonist-Centered Morality: Geppeto/The Adversary is the bad guy of the series because his wars of conquest caused many thousands or millions of people to die; but as he points out later, this meant many more millions/billions of people across hundreds of worlds could live in peace for centuries without worrying about getting eaten by dragons or ogres or murdered by psychotic local despots (as long as they paid their taxes, anyway). Meanwhile, Bigby, Frau Totenkinder and even Jack are known mass murderers whose only real motivation was power, money or infamy. But the latter are accepted as more or less good guys while the former is straight-through evil (although his habit of recruiting primarily orcs and assorted monsters rather than more family friendly, civilization-oriented mythic creatures for foot soldiers compounds the problem.
- I'm sure those hundreds of millions were all grateful to be murdered in order to save ten times more lives. Well, not save as much as keep safe from potential harm. Sacrificing liberty for security and all that. Not that they were given the choice or anything.
- As Geppeto himself admits in one flashback, he never set out to conquer the known universe - like so many other Well Intentioned Extremists before him, it all started out as simply replacing a single wicked man for the good of the many. Then more had to be done to preserve that peace. And then more. And then more. After a while, the things he had to do to keep power never seemed to be as hard as some of the things he had already done, which made it easier to "do bad for the greater good". And it's clear that somewhere along the way, he was seduced by the power as well. But Fables is definitely more a case of Grey-and-Gray Morality than it is a straight-up good-versus-evil dichotomy. If anything, it's probably closer to a conflict between True Neutral and Lawful Neutral, with the difference being that the Fables put more emphasis on the individual while the Empire puts more emphasis on the state. Well, at least until the Chaotic Evil Boogeyman escapes and the mood shifts dramatically.
- I'm sure those hundreds of millions were all grateful to be murdered in order to save ten times more lives. Well, not save as much as keep safe from potential harm. Sacrificing liberty for security and all that. Not that they were given the choice or anything.
- Oh, also the good guys believe in preemptive assault, torture, summary execution, entrapment, and keep the non-human Fables (that aren't important enough to get glamours, anyway) either locked in cages and private rooms in the back office of their HQ or, in most cases, on a prison-farm, with more summary executions for any that rebel.
- The Adversary however was trying to assault Fabletown to kill everyone though (and possibly try to conquer Earth while there), so many of their actions could fall under self-defence, particularly the pre-emptive assault (why let a larger and more powerful enemy get the first hit?). Even allowing for this though, the Fables are far from squeaky-clean, morality wise, as the above points out.
err, there is that part when the empire tries to extinct human kind For the Evulz and the only reason they don't go through with it is because Pinocchio points out various reasons why their plan to do it will fail, that kinda puts them in the bad guy territory.
regarding the good guy's actions within the comics, pretty sure that falls in Good Is Not Soft and Good Is Not Dumb, they imprison animal fables so mundies won't find out, they tortue to get information, and execute as a rather practical punishment, regarding the circumstances in which it happened.
Edited by 46.121.109.5 Thinking things through is unfun, better make stuff up on the spot.
Choombi
i think a Guns Are Useless entry should be added just to point out how utterly is this trope averted, fabletown defeats the empire's army consisting of dragons, sorcerers, goblins, and just about every magical creature coming to mind, that outnumber them 100 to 1 by just shooting everyone with modern weaponry
also, is there a trope that covers Mr's Spratt transformation from an unimportant Jerkass to, well, the Big Bad? (think about it, she is)?
Edited by 46.121.109.5 Thinking things through is unfun, better make stuff up on the spot. Hide / Show Replies
Eh, that looks more like Reality Ensues.
Second question: Might want to ask that in the Trope Finder.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
"War of Northern Aggression". In what context and when did someone in the comics refer to the civil war as the "war of northern aggression". Bill may be a wingnut but implying he's a confederate sympathizer is a pretty serious accusation.
Hide / Show Replies
i agree...that was inside jack's story, and as consequence, every word said there is more likely to be a lie than not.
Thinking things through is unfun, better make stuff up on the spot.
Besides that, the story is a "flashback" to Jack during a time period in which he was fighting for the Confederacy.
Now I do have to note that my impression is that most of the states from which the Jack tales (in the sense of the Appalachian folklore) derive were in the Union (if reluctantly), but given that the comic set it in the South, that nomenclature makes sense.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
Sorcerer in training
Anyone have an objection to Spikes of Villainy being added? Hadeon the Destroyer (aka a name to run away from very fast) from the "Fairest" collection/graphic novel, has quite the impressive set of black, spiky armor.
Also, maybe Important Hair Cut for the Snow Queen?
Edited by 69.172.221.4 Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Jesus christ, what's up with the rape justifications on the main page? I won't edit it myself because I haven't seen the issue in question but that's RAPE no matter how much people claim that 'letting it happen' or 'she didn't scream' is supposed to be consent. I mean, really.
Hide / Show Replies
I vaguely remember someone claiming that Jack raped a girl because she was depressed around the time and so her explicit consent (which pretty much amounted to: "shut up and have sex with me)" and participation in the act were all null and void- Which is completely retarded in every legal and moral sense. Also if you haven't seen that issue how can you insist so vehemently on something. I mean, really.
No Rose Red did not consent. Jack came into her room expecting sex and she told him no because she was "saving herself for Blue" so she could become "worthy of him" when he came back from the dead. She later confessed she wanted him to stay with her because of her grief though he though she changed her mind but she told him she did not mean it like that. He ended up having sex with her anyway, multiple times which she may have consented to but would appear dubious at best and sometime afterward she ordered him to leave her alone under threat of being burned by Clara. I just read the section in question and not once did she ever gave any "explict consent", she never said "shut up and have sex with me" or anything along those lines, and she appeared very weak and sickly as a result of her refusing to get out of bed since blue's death and Jack made himself one the most well known Fables in the world so she would not have really been able to fight him off. The closest thing we have to "consent" of any sort is the fact that during the sex Rose kept calling Blue's name, there's a trope regarding this misplaced notion known as "It's not rape if you enjoyed it" but as mentioned there that is NEVER the case. Jack wanted sex, Rose told him no multiple times, Jack slept with her anyway. If that being rape is "completely retarded in every legal and moral sense" than something is wrong here because that sounds like it fits much better than "dubious consent" in this situation. If your memories are vague at best how are you any better of a judge than someone who hasn't read it, the least you could have done is make SURE your information was accurate before replying based on a misinformed assumption.
I said I remember someones claim vaguely not the comic itself (albeit I didn't have it open, like I do now, when I wrote that.)
"there's a trope regarding this misplaced notion known as "It's not rape if you enjoyed it"" Something I never said and I think it's unfair to imply that I think something as idiotic as that.
"If that being rape is "completely retarded..."" I didn't say "that" is a retarded notion but the claim of the edit I was describing- which was that being depressed about something the other party knows nothing invalidates consent.
Re-reading it now, we only see the prelude which goes in the the direction that consent wasn't given (Jack chooses to misrepresent the situation and keeps on badgering Rose) and the aftermath which goes in the direction that it was given out of self-loathing ("The fact that I let you into my bed is proof enough that I've hit rock bottom. Don't you get it genius? You're the man I deserve, poor you.")
The point is that the whole thing is open to conjecture due to the incomplete nature of what we see - any rape trope in this case goes in the YMMV tab, not on the main page. The original poster ignored the fact that people were pointing out the ambiguity or the faults of some arguments (like I did) and choose to see it as "rape justifications" which is an unfair thing to accuse people of when you haven't even read the damn thing.
Let's get this clear, this is not a thing of personal preference (I dislike Jack a lot for that scene as well as in general and Rose is one of the few characters I found sympathetic) it's a matter of TV Tropes policy which has a YMMV tab for just such situations and where having strong opinions on things you don't read/watch is discouraged.
I'm working to clean up this page's formatting, massive indentation issues, and to add context to entries that are little more than naming characters, AND correcting/removing tropes that are used incorrectly. There are way too many tropes that are shoehorned in or just used incorrectly — including cases where the editor totally missed the obvious correct example of the trope and instead used something that doesn't fit at all.
Edited by FranksGirl Hide / Show Replies