Markup View

Author: Aielyn

Mar 15th 2012 at 11:35:50 PM

shimaspawn - First, NotATrope makes sense as a redirect, because PSOC is a negative way of defining what makes something a trope; that is, PSOC defines what ''is'' a trope by defining what ''isn't'' a trope - namely, "a trope is something used in storytelling with meaning or purpose". You're right that PSOC wasn't meant to ''declare'' what is and isn't a trope - that's what {{Trope}} is for... PSOC is the PredefinedMessage clarifying it.

Second, you're wrong regarding all tropes being due to culture. While it is true that most are, there are OmnipresentTropes that are not, such as {{Plot}} as an essential example. More generally, as I've said before, OmnipresentTropes are more inherent to nature than to culture - specifically, human nature. While it is theoretically conceivable for another culture to not generally follow said trope, it has never been observed in humanity, at all, ever. And for the record, simply stating your opinion followed by a declaration that someone else is just plain wrong is not an argument, it's idealistic stupidity. If you can't back up your argument with evidence, and can only throw such phrases at me, then I suggest you stop posting.

Septimus Heap - the main problem with making a ''new'' NotATrope page separate from PSOC is that you would then need a heap of PredefinedMessages to explain specific factors. The strength of PSOC is that it neatly establishes what makes something a trope and what makes something NotATrope. An alternative solution would be to establish a "reverse" version of PSOC under a name like PurposeAndMeaningMakesItATrope (although preferably a bit shorter than that).

King Zeal - yes, nature will play a part in informing the development, which is why androcentric societies are much more common than gynocentric societies. However, even if you attempt to apply that reasoning to it, one must note the classic "her day of the month" (if you get my drift), which would also influence culture.

As for your examples of it being played straight, I must point out that ''Titanic'' was set in 1912, when such attitudes were much more common (and thus, it was merely being consistent with history). DistressedDamsel is more often played with than played straight, nowadays - more often than not, the "damsel" will end up beating her captor before her rescue party can reach her (the primary exception nowadays is in videogaming, but that's a sexism issue). Meanwhile, the ActionGirl ones you mentioned aren't actually WomenAreDelicate played straight - indeed, they're zig-zagging and subverting it, respectively.

I don't doubt that there are natural influences on how men and women are portrayed in stories. I just challenge the idea that WomenAreDelicate is an example of it. I could certainly come up with a trope that ''is'' omnipresent, that carries a similar concept with it - GenderRelevance, or something like that. Whenever you have both male and female characters in a work, their genders will be relevant to their characterisation or purpose. For instance, if you have a group with many men and one woman, and they find themselves needing to convince another man for support or to look the other way, etc... the woman will nearly always be the one to do it, with her "feminine wiles".

The point is that the tendency to have gender roles (even if they're not the "traditional" ones) is very strong, and could even be called "omnipresent" (to such an extent that I have trouble thinking of a story in which males and females appear, but their genders aren't relevant to the story)... but women being the "delicate" nurturers is by no means omnipresent.