Discussion Main / MisBlamed

Scapegoat Creator has been merged into Misblamed and has been made a redirect to the same.

Can there be in-universe examples in works/character pages, where a character is falsely accused of something?

I believe that the following fragment of 'Real Life' category should be deleted: "People also forget that far from an aberration of the Revolution, the Terror saw several unique measures such as subsidies to artisans and shopkeepers, a price-ceiling for bread prices, the drastic reduction of nobility in the army from 90% to 3%, the opening of the Louvre to the public, the Jardin des Plantes and the abolition of slavery for the first time in any democratic state".

First, it is completely off-topic. This trope is about mis-blaming, not about focusing on negative side of any given phenomenon. Earlier parts of the paragraph show why the bloodiest chapter of the French Revolution was the sole responsibility of Jacobins and Sanculottes and this fits the trope perfectly.

Second, the developments author listed were the result not of The Terror, but rather of the abolition of the tyrannical absolute monarchy. Most democratic countries achieved this without mass murders and executions. The France itself is a good example - the Revolution ended with the establishment of an Empire, that has subsequently fallen, and the rule over country was quickly changing hands between republicans and the Bourbon dynasty. Present Fifth French Republic managed to introduce all democratic liberties without terror and bloodshed.

Third, the last sentence is false. The slavery has been long abolished in other democratic countries of the era, namely Old Swiss Confederation Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Italian City-States (note that slavery was absent in most countries of Central and Western Europe and was only rekindled by colonial powers, namely England, in late 17th century).

Shouldn't this be a trivia page instead of YMMV? Either someone is blamed for something they didn't do or they were responsible. It's not really subjective.

The bit about One More Day says JMS supported the retcon and wanted to take it further. Now, the version I heard was that he said that if you were doing the retcon, you logically had to take it further, to which Quesada famously replied "it's magic". I'm not sure this was a comment for or against doing the retcon in the first place. ICBW.

Removed the following for being generally confusing. The most common complaint about the show is that it glamorizes teen pregnancy, and gives an unrealistic portrayal. Both are admitted as likely by the example, and while only a strawman would consider it the sole cause of teen pregnancy, very few would argue unrealistic glamorization make things better:

• Contrary to what adults between 35-64 may believe, Sixteen And Pregnant (and its spin-off series Teen Mom) did not make the teen pregnancy problem in America worse than ever. If anything, MTV launched the series to help combat the issue after the infamous nineteen girl pregnancy pact in Nebraska. Another variant of the blame are from mothers who got pregnant young as well, with most of them claiming the show does not reflect their personal experience. The irony of those complaints is that many mothers prove that their experiences are vastly different from the show's pregnant girls, along with other teen mothers. This also makes the case that the show can't truly capture the average American's teen pregnancy situation, since there's no ideal way to show it (many Muslim Americans made similar complaints toward the producers of All American Muslim). Sixteen And Pregnant certainly has its share of problems - unintentional glorification is a commonly cited one - but from the sound of detractors, you think that Sixteen And Pregnant invented teen pregnancy.

Nevermind, got my answer elsewhere.

Added Richard Knaak because at least one of the many accusations leveled against him is false. He does work with the lore department when it comes to changing certain details of the lore in his books; he doesn't just change things because he feels like it, contrary to what many of his critics think. The man is certainly guilty of other literary sins, but changing lore for shits and giggles is not one of those sins.

Pulled:

• While the Code is almost always blamed for "killing" Super Hero comics in the 1950's (from the perspective of fans of the Dark Age and Modern Age comics anyway), there's a good chance that there would be no Superhero comics today if not for the Code. After the Golden Age ended superhero comics lost popularity - before the Code came about - and were being replaced by other genres such as horror and crime comics. The Code absolutely destroyed those two genres due to their natures, forcing readers to fall back on superhero comics.

Look at the dates. The code was 1954. Superhero comics continued to die after the code was introduced for several years. The Flash was 1956 (and it took a while after that for superheroes to actually get popular). The Fantastic Four was 1961. Post-code books couldn't be crime, but there was still sci-fi and monsters and such, not superheroes.

Also, look at manga. While there are a lot of non-superhero manga, of course, there are also a lot of series like Naruto full of people who use unusual powers to fight people with other unusual powers. So it's possible to have no Code and still develop something resembling superheroes.

Pulled this on account of being incomprehensible:

* And Jean coming back was not due to Executive Meddling or pleasing fans. Nor was the way she was brought back a way to cheat readers. Claremont and others stated very clearly they wanted to bring her back, just not as a mass murderer, and it took them a while to figure it out.

Pulled the PC vs. consoles example because it isn't an example for the trope. It starts off with "Consoles first", then goes on a rambling Wall of Text why development for the PC platform is tough and never comes back. So, who gets blamed for consoles getting prioritized in game development? The developers? Console gamers? Publishers? And why is it Mis-blamed? Never explained.

Also, it comes dangerously close to flame bait.

I pulled the Seth Mac Farlane example because...well look, I think it's fair that if he's the lead creative element on his show and voices most of the characters, he deserves at least some of the blame for the quality of the show, good or bad. Even on episodes he didn't write, he still had to think well enough of the scripts to get them produced and surely think of them in high enough regard as he's voicing all the characters.