Main Omnipresent Tropes Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

11:06:53 AM Feb 27th 2014
edited by
Question: Foreshadowing is omnipresent? Lack of Foreshadowing, at least, is sufficiently uncommon to be listed(as Ass Pull).
01:03:00 AM Aug 13th 2012
09:57:55 PM Jul 30th 2012
edited by TDS
Right now the page is not about omnipresent tropes. It is Seen It a Million Times taken Up to Eleven. Omnipresent means "all present", or being everywhere simultaneously. Which is why the entry didn't always have the words "Some are" in front of "intrinsically vital to storytelling itself."

If there is even a single exception then the trope is, by definition, NOT omnipresent. If this page is not about omnipresent tropes, then what is it about?

There are three ways to fix this problem. 1) Strict maintenance and a MUCH shorter list of tropes. 2) Deletion of the page. 3) Renaming the page to reflect what it's really about (and possibly keeping an omnipresent trope page under therules set by the first option)
01:45:51 PM Aug 2nd 2012
edited by troacctid
A Law of Fiction that is never, ever broken is omnipresent as well. For example, Three-Month-Old Newborn is absolutely an Omnipresent Trope even though not every work has babies, because using real newborns is prohibited by infant safety laws or whatever, so it's impossible to have a work with a newborn baby in it that doesn't use the trope. The Good Guys Always Win is another one—you can avert it by not having Black and White Morality, but if you do have Black and White Morality, it's impossible to get away from because it's so tightly ingrained in the audience's minds.

Also bear in mind that people are creative, and if you say that a certain trope can never, ever be averted under any circumstances, it will be taken as a challenge. There are always exceptions.
04:24:49 PM Aug 15th 2012
The page used to say that the tropes listed were "intrinsically vital to story-telling itself." My position is that the words "Some are" should not have been added, that making that change was the equivalent of making a round hole into a square one because it must've been the hole's fault that the square peg didn't fit. Nothing you said convinced me that those tropes fit the original definition, nor did it convince me that the original definition was flawed.

If the page is not about tropes that are "intrinsically vital to storytelling itself" than tell me what it IS about, and how it differs from Universal Tropes because I can't see it.
11:20:27 PM Aug 15th 2012
edited by troacctid
Universal Tropes are tropes that can exist in any form of media—television, comics, radio, live theatre, etc.—rather than being restricted to one medium. So for example, Bitter Almonds is Universal; Point-and-Click Map is not; and neither is Omnipresent. This distinction is (hopefully) not disputed by anybody (AFAIK).

The guidelines for tropes that appear on this index are fuzzy. There have been disagreements before and there will be disagreements again. That's okay. *shrug*
07:56:52 PM Oct 3rd 2012
My problem wasn't with fuzzy guidelines. My problem was that there were guidelines and someone decided to change them in order to fit the trope list instead of changing the trope list to fit the guidelines. That shit ruins pages, it needs to fixed.
12:47:14 AM Dec 21st 2010
edited by troacctid
I'm putting The Good Guys Always Win onto this index mainly on the basis that:
  • It's at least as omnipresent as several of the other tropes currently in the index, probably more so;
  • The aversion is rare and notable enough to be a trope on its own;
  • You don't even think of it as a trope until it's pointed out (based on multiple people in the YKTTW who called it People Sitting On Chairs);
  • And how big a deal it is if it doesn't happen.

Consider that The Bad Guy Wins is a major ending spoiler, whereas The Good Guy Wins is never a spoiler at all. It's what we expect by default. That's how ubiquitous it is.

Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement, I'll wait to put it back on, but I think I'm going to stick to this one.
01:03:03 AM Dec 22nd 2010
I honestly think this page has suffered a bit of decay, so I'm not surprised to hear that there are some tropes on here that are not actually omnipresent.

The page itself defines omnipresent tropes as tropes that are "intrinsically vital to storytelling itself", a test which I think The Good Guys Always Win fails.

That said, I probably will not take it out if you add it back in again after now. But I do want my specific objection to be known, if nothing else.
11:42:59 AM Jan 23rd 2011
edited by TripleElation
Maybe "intrinsically vital to storytelling itself" is pushing it too far. This basically limits us to tropes which are impossible to avert, or aversions of which bork the work beyond all repair. Which leaves us with:

I think a better criterion is "Given a random work, chances are excellent it's going to have this trope". The pothole to Seen It a Million Times is a nudge in that direction (after all, there's it and then there's "seen it every single time").

This is how stuff like One Steve Limit, Back Story and Romance Arc qualify.

Notably, Black and White Morality is very borderline in these modern, cynical times.
01:19:33 PM Jan 23rd 2011
I'd definitely contest Black and White Morality, cynical times or no. Look at the Seven Basic Conflicts. Man vs. Nature? Man vs. Self? These are whole genres that don't require any sort of morality to be involved at all. On that grounds, I'll take it off the list.
01:34:50 PM Aug 7th 2011
edited by TDS
If this is "Given a random work, chances are excellent it's going to have this trope" then it becomes Seen It a Million Times taken Up to Eleven, and that doesn't need its own page.

Omnipresent means All-present so if something is omnipresent then it has to be there 100% of the time BY DEFINITION. The fact that this makes it a short list isn't a problem.
04:40:14 PM Nov 5th 2010
Do Briffits and Squeans also count being here?
07:14:25 PM Nov 5th 2010
06:03:23 PM Oct 3rd 2010
Does An Aesop really belong here? It's certainly common, but there's no shortage of works that are made primarily to entertain and not to teach any kind of moral lesson.
10:54:37 AM Dec 20th 2010
My inclination is that no, it doesn't. An Aesop has suffered a bit of Trope Decay—it's only supposed to be for instances when the moral is explicitly stated within the story.
03:42:06 AM May 9th 2010
Took out MacGuffin, replaced it with Plot Device. It seemed odd to me that MacGuffin was on their when it is something whose appearance is often remarked upon and which had quite a specific characteristic. When you go onto the page you see the warning to not confuse MacGuffin with Plot Device and...yeah, it seems that happened. On the one had you have a device that helps to drive the plot while not actually having an impact on it and on the other hand, anything that advances a plot, anything.
Collapse/Expand Topics