A Butt Monkey has to be a regular character, but they are often not the protagonist. A Loser Protagonist is an in-universe status, while this trope is about expected audience readings of the protagonist. A Failure Hero is still in some sense a hero: they are fighting on behalf of some cause, only they keep failing. Loser Protagonists and This Loser Is You types don't even have the will to fight in the first place.
In sum, BM is a comedy type, LP is in-universe, TLIY is aimed at the audience, and FH is about plot. The first three overlap but are distinct.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Is the page quote really an example at all? I mean, it's just Little Miss Snarker Viridi implying that Luigi, the Super Mario franchise's Butt-Monkey, is a loser, and Pit trying to defend him, with no implication that Luigi is meant to be an Audience Surrogate.
I'm sorry, but I loathe this trope. We don't need to be reminded of how shitty our lives can be sometimes. That's why we watch TV shows, to escape the harsh realities we go through, not to be reminded of them.
Edited by 216.99.32.44 Hide / Show Replies
I'm not sure if you're just ranting about the trope (and I won't criticize you, I do it all the time) or the attitude TV Tropes takes toward this trope, but I kind of agree. There could also be a question as to whether the protagonist is just set up as a total loser to intentionally represent the audience or just because, and if it's the latter, but mistaken for the former, the question of whether some people are just being whiney and ought to shut up.
Tv tropes view of this trope is terrible even more so considering how much it counteracts it's intro. It openly states this trope isn't meant to be bad than portrays every example as bad, can they be professional about anything?
Regarding the original comment the whole idea of this trope is that this person whose just an average joe like you can make their lives better. It's an uplifting idea that tells it's audience no matter where you are in life you can still make your situation better if you have the will to try. Hating this for reminding you of your hardships is missing the point entirely, it's about showing people they can make their situation better if they try.
Edited by Hatari05
$20 says the entry about CWC was written either by the man himself or one of his more...ahem, committed white knights. That said, I'm not entirely convinced it's an apropos example, as he labors under the delusion that he's a hero despite it being more than obvious to us that he is not one.
Hide / Show Replies
In the name of Pele and Hathor, that is faaaar too long for an example.
I've brought it up here
.
I think this should be a YMMV Trope. As some others have said, this trope assumes that the character is made a loser to be sympathetic. Also what makes one character a loser or pathetic in one viewer's eyes might not seem that way to another viewer. It seems like pretty cut and dry YMMV.
Hide / Show Replies
Except that a character intentionally being sympathetic isn't a reaction trope, or YMMV. That's author intent, and what's supposed to be there. Yes, what people find sympathetic is YMMV, but whether the author is shooting for it or not isn't.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Yes, but author's intent is hardly ever found in any of these listed examples. Its mostly people complaining about a character's faults. Author's intent is a different trope entirely.
Reading tropes such as YouKnowWhatYouDid
Not sure if I am overthinking this, but this trope Just Bugs Me. Say someone is depressed, they need a lift, they go and watch a show of a film which tells them how much they suck. Anyone else wonder if this has an impact on people's self esteem?
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours Hide / Show Replies
This has nothing to do with telling you how much you suck. This is about characters who are losers for the purpose of being sympathetic to the audience.
I'm a Troper!!!
I feel that this trope in general assumes that they know exactly how and why a character is made and who they're made to appeal to. Some of these guys on this page don't look like they're intended to have this affect at all, and we'll never really KNOW unless word of god comments on it. This is the problem with much of TV tropes, too often too much (particularly why a character is written to be the way he is) is assumed with no evidence and written like it's truth.
A lot of writers do not even think in this way or try to make characters that mirror the audience. This trope is mostly made up of people just assuming this based on a character having certain characteristics. It's misinformation.
MagBas
- Final Fantasy X starred Tidus, designed so the players would have someone to identify with, and to allow the characters to explain the more unfamiliar aspects of their culture to someone who legitimately had no idea what was going on without the dialogue seeming forced. It was arguably taken too far, however, as Tidus seems unable to make any inferences about what is going on around him, is frequently shown to forget many of the things he has been told, and comes across as a huge wanker by doing things that nobody would think are good ideas, ignorance of the culture or not, such as barging into a sacred area of a temple only a very select few are allowed into, even after being specifically told this.
- The point of Tidus being brash and ignoring Spira's cultural mores was the fact that the only way to save the planet from Sin was to break all of its until then established rules of society and their constant trying to use the same methods eliminate the problem. Note that when the game flashbacks to Jecht he is initially shown as being a wild maverick, since the Fayth knew this was the key to getting people to rally against Sin, but eventually he started just acting like everyone else, making him perfect fodder for Yu Yevon. The entire game seems to actually be a not-so-subtle critique of the old "nail that sticks out" adage that Japanese society adheres to.
If the poster is right he not qualifies- his rebeliouness is the motive that he is not a loser, basically.
Do these two examples fit? I'm wondering if I can add Tony Soprano and Bertie Wooster. They're probably not perfect fits: Tony is filthy rich, and Bertie is attractive, educated, and musically talented. Also, their friends aren't all wonderful; actually, their friends make them look good by comparison!
Still, Tony is a fat, lazy slob with a crummy job (when you think about it), and a family who hates him (and occasionally tries to kill him). Oh, and he's subject to panic attacks for which he's in therapy. Bertie, meanwhile, is un-employable, un-datable, and generally dumb (despite the Oxford education). Plus, he's almost terminally unlucky, with friends and enemies alike routinely threatening his well-being. Both definitely inspire feelings of superiority in the audience.
So, what do you think?
Doesn't sit right with me. Yes the intention of the quote is to say that, "Superman thinks we are losers." The intention of the trope is for a piece to say, "This hero/star/whatever is a loser, and so can you!" Yes you can fantasize that you are Superman but you aren't doing it so that you can have the protracted fantasy of then being Clark Kent....
This bit...
I'm not entirely sure what it's getting at. He's maybe based on someone that the Critic got on the wrong side of, but I wouldn't call it "Loser".
Is there a difference between this and Butt Monkey and Failure Hero and Loser Protagonist? They all seem to be one and the same!
Hide / Show Replies