I agree this makes absolutely no sense. Isn't In Universe Examples Only, and the whole concept of In-Universe for that matter, limited to Audience Reactions?
I think what they really mean is "no misusing the term 'subversion' to mean something else than what it's defined as here".
Which has absolutely nothing to do with In-Universe.
What is the difference between averted and subverted?
Hide / Show Replies
Subverted Trope: "Basically, this is playing bait and switch with a trope. A work makes you think a trope is going to happen, but it doesn't." " Averted Trope: "Tropes have exceptions. Sometimes a writer uses a situation that seems indelibly married to a trope, but the trope never appears. It's not a Subverted Trope, because the lack of trope is never pointed out. Nor is it a Lampshade Hanging, because the presence of trope is never pointed out. The trope just isn't there. That is the core meaning of "averted". The writer just went past the trope. He ignored it, he forgot it existed, or it wasn't even a trope at all in his culture. " Using the examples in the own pages:
"Take the trope Incredibly Obvious Bug. The trope is that listening and tracking devices are huge and obvious with blinking lights, instead of being small, stealthy, and hidden.
Played straight: A villain plants an Incredibly Obvious Bug on a chair. Despite the green flashing light and periodic beep, the hero does not notice it. Subversion: A villain plants an Incredibly Obvious Bug on a chair. The hero finds it and throws it out, muttering, "Does he think I'm blind?" Averted: A villain plants a bug on a chair. It is small, camouflaged and unobtrusive, and goes undetected by the hero. The trope never comes into play. "
"A full comparison could go something like this: A car chase is in progress at reckless speeds. The camera cuts to some workers carrying a Sheet of Glass, then cuts back to the panicked driver headed towards the workers. It seems pretty obvious that the driver is going to smash the glass sheet into a million fragments... or is it?
If the car drives through the pane of glass, it's played straight. If the car drives through the pane of glass, and the workers are heard complaining about why cars that are being chased can avoid nearly everything but a pane of glass, it's lampshaded. If the car misses the pane of glass, it's subverted. If something else causes the glass to be broken before the car can even make it to where the glass pane broke, it's also subverted. Another subversion is if the car hits, but somehow the car phases through and neither the glass nor the car is broken. If the car misses the pane of glass but something else causes the glass to be broken, it's a double subversion. If the car hits the pane of glass, and the result is that the glass merely has a car-shaped hole in it, that's downplayed (and also Played for Laughs, but that's another matter. It's also Impact Silhouette played straight.) However, if the car hits the pane of glass, and the result is that the glass merely has a car-shaped hole in it, but the pane of glass collapsed on itself, it's either played straight or a double subversion (And also breaking a downplay). If the car hits the glass, but it's the car that shatters (instead of the glass), it's inverted (and a very shoddily-built car at that). If there is no pane of glass at all, it's averted."
The best way (I think) to describe a subversion is like this: Imagine the trope as being like a clear, open road. You're walking along the road, and suddenly - WHAM! - turns out there was a cliff you fell off of. You can't "kind of" fall off a cliff, although you can almost fall off a cliff (which would be an Un Twist), but if you fell, you fell off a cliff. The road is a trope, the cliff is a subversion. Detours are not cliffs. Speedbumps and potholes are not cliffs. A good reason for walking/driving on that road is not a cliff. Explaining some of the very realistic consequences of said road is not a cliff.
Does that make sense? Maybe there's a better way to put it, but...yeah.
Wait, wait, what?
"The set-up is a trope; the "something else" is the subversion. It is a deliberate act on the part of the characters, as though they are expecting the trope themselves." (Emphasis added.)
Isn't that Defied Trope? I mean, I can't say for sure that has't always been there and I just didn't notice it and misused "subverted" to mean, you know, cases where a trope is clearly set up and then doesn't happen, even without deliberate acts on part of characters... but this seems to make this the same as defied trope (or "successfully defied trope with setup visible to the audience"), it doesn't fit all the examples in the description ("something else" breaks the glass first, not "someone deliberately to prevent the car colliding with it") nor really the rest of the description itself, and it generally doesn't make sense to me.
So I'm going to assume that's a mistake and remove it (the latter sentence). Reply here if I am mistaken myself. And feel free to undo my removing it if you have good reason — I'm not very confident changing the description of such an über-trope. But if it really is wrong here where people are advised to read it carefully, prompt action is needed. And I honestly can't see how it could be right, not with Defied Trope a separate thing.
Edited by VVK
Dogman15
The "car through the pane of glass" thing: All those examples are great, but what if the car goes through the glass and neither the glass nor the car breaks because the car phased through it somehow? Hmm?
Hide / Show Replies
Or...what if it worked like a Bait-and-Switch scenario: the car speeds through at breakneck pace, cut to men holding a sheet of glass, then back to the car with the driver looking panicked, then you see a close-up of a glass surface shattering, but then it turns out that was just a rock breaking a nearby window. It then pans out to show the car right in front of the sheet of glass...and then it phases through!
I will not be understood. Understand?!
The trope is again subverted. However, another trope comes into play and there's probably an entry that describes the close-up you mentioned. Too lazy to check it out right now.
Edited by flamenemy
Sounds like a Cut Apart used to subvert the Sheet of Glass, followed by a second subversion (not a Double Subversion) of the Sheet of Glass :)
Edited by jerodast
The car goes trough the glass and neither the glass nor the car breaks because the car phased through it. However, sometime after that, said Sheet of Glass shattered because the car did hit, but the blow was delayed. Is that a Double Subversion?
What if the car goes through the pane of glass, merely leaves a hole through it, THEN the pane of glass shatters?
Hide / Show Replies
That's Not A Subversion. It's either an example of the trope being played straight, or a Double Subversion of said trope.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
This discussion
addresses the "partial subversion" (mis)conception well. In short, even a complex trope with a couple (not all) elements subverted is still "completely" subverted - rarely does a work subvert every single one. Also, optional elements simply don't count for subversion, since an example is still an example regardless of those elements. I believe that should be explained here or on the Not A Subversion page, and I'll add that section shortly unless there are arguments.
Doesn't an example have to be an actual subversion with intent or is it just literally, "every time an expectation is built up in the slightest and then have that expectation dashed?" Just because you start out a piece of art to go in an angle of, say, violence then change somewhere to an angle of peace doesn't make it a subverted trope, does it?
For an example of what brought this to mind look at the comic -> Watchmen example. Veidt is setup to be a good (gay? I never got that impression myself...) guy but he's really a bad guy... how is this some amazing "subverted trope" and not just part of the story? There is no law in art that everything must be exactly what it says on the tin.
Are all mystery novels giant super novas of subverted tropes? (I mean, more so than they are!)
Speaking of the Watchmen example, I moved it to film, because the description given just doesn't apply to the comic. Simply put, the possibility that Veidt might be gay is not given much attention in the comic, and certainly no one suggests that Veidt might not be a good fighter as a result. Rorschach, the only person who comments that Veidt might be gay also says that he can't imagine a more dangerous opponent.
Frankly, the Watchmen example is a bad one from what I remember of the movie, but I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar to make the final cut. From what I can tell, it's simply Not A Subversion - if it's a requirement that Ambiguously Gay folks are bad at fighting, then it's averted, and if it's not a requirement, then his fighting ability has no effect on the trope at all (subverting it or otherwise).
Why does the page say "In-universe examples only" yet NONE of the examples are in-universe?
Edited by 107.220.219.90 "The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong." Hide / Show Replies